DRAFT Item 3.1

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL RADIATION TECHNOLOGISTS

BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETINGNovember 16 and 17, 2012

Penthouse ASheraton Hotel

Ottawa, Ontario

MINUTES

Members: Amanda Bolderston, RTT, FCAMRT – President/Chair of the Board Shirley Bague, RTR, ACR, RTMR – Immediate Past PresidentWendy Martin-Gutjahr, RTR – Alberta/Vice PresidentKaren Davis, RTT – SaskatchewanBrenda Badiuk, RTNM – Manitoba/Secretary-TreasurerEleanor Roppel, RTR – OntarioMicheline Jette, t.e.m.n. – QuebecJulie Cyr, RTR – New BrunswickCarol Anne Davis, RTT, ACT – Nova ScotiaDeborah Murley, RTR – Prince Edward IslandLoretta Metcalfe, RTR, ACR – Newfoundland & LabradorPatricia Munro, RTNM – Member-at-LargeKimberley Krueger, RTMR – Member-at-Large

Regrets: Kelly Nystedt, RTT – British Columbia

Staff: Leacy O’Callaghan-O’Brien – Director of Advocacy, Communications & EventsElaine Dever – Director of EducationMichelle Charest – Director of Finance & AdministrationMark Given – Director of Professional Practice

Guests: Dorothy Bennett, RTR – Incoming Director, NewfoundlandRobin Hesler, RTR – Incoming Director, OntarioGailyne MacPherson, RTR, ACR – Incoming Director, Prince Edward IslandMike Lupiano, Morgan Leadership Search

A. Bolderston called the meeting to order. She extended a special welcome to R. Hesler, Incoming Director – Ontario, D. Bennett, Incoming Director – Newfoundland & Labrador, and G. MacPherson, Incoming Director – Prince Edward Island. She then briefed incoming directors on their role as observers, stating that they would be permitted to vote on matters related to the 2013 budget. She conveyed regrets from K. Nystedt who was unable to attend the board meeting due to family illness.

1. Adoption of the agenda

Additions were invited to the agenda and the following items were added: Item 4.7.1, Professional Practices Advisory Council board member; Item 4.14, Board Awards Sub-

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 1

Committee members; Item 10.3, decision for 2016 AGC; Item 12.1, CARO Membership Committee; Item 12.2, OAMRS correspondence.

MOTION Badiuk/Bague

To adopt the agenda, with amendments.

CARRIED

2. Review and approval of minutes and recording of business conducted electronically

2.1 Minutes of the June 2012 board meeting

There were no errors or omission to the minutes of the June 2012 board meeting.

MOTION Bague/Badiuk

To approve the minutes of the June 2012 board meeting.

CARRIED

2.2 Business conducted electronically

The purpose of this item is to officially minute decisions that took place electronically since the last board meeting.

MOTION C.A. Davis/Metcalfe

To approve the appointment of Shelly Kallos, CAMRT Representative to the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative.

CARRIED

MOTION Roppel/Cyr

To approve the proposed compensation for the staff directors while they cover the CEO’s responsibilities.

CARRIED

3. Reports

3.1 President

There were no questions on the report.

3.2 Immediate Past President

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 2

S. Bague invited questions on her report. It was suggested that the wording on the sign/banner to display at CAMRT breakfasts at external organization conferences should read “CAMRT Social” instead of “CAMRT Breakfast,” as this could also be an evening event. S. Bague stated that she had received good feedback on the protocol book. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien suggested making the CAMRT pledge available on the website. ACTION: L. O’Callahan-O’Brien

3.3 Vice-President

There were no questions on the report.

3.4 Treasurer

There were no questions on the report.

3.5 Staff Report

Strategic Planning Chair, W. Martin-Gutjahr, drew attention to the new format of the staff report. She stated that the practice had been to report on the strategic plan as a separate item, but it had become clear that the staff report was the strategic plan in action. Therefore, the two were now combined.

L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien invited questions/comments on the update under each goal.

Goal 1E. Dever updated that the response rate was excellent for the surveys sent out for validation of the competency profiles. They were as follows:

Education program surveyNuclear Medicine – 100%Radiological Technology – 90%Therapy – 87%MR – 72%

Practitioners surveyRadiological Technology – 13%Nuclear Medicine – 15.5%Therapy – 17%MR – 11.3%

Managers surveyDiagnostic Imaging – 24%Therapy – 32%

E. Dever confirmed that board approval would be first obtained before the competency profiles were translated. She further updated that the nuclear medicine program at the Michener Institute would not be taking in student for the next two years. She advised that CAMRT would be one of the stakeholders consulted in the redevelopment of the

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 3

program.

D. Murley questioned the splitting into two committees of the Future Technology Advisory Council – medical imaging and radiation therapy. She remarked that much of future technology would impact radiation therapists and she wanted to make sure that nothing would be missed that would affect them. M. Given advised that there would be a therapist sitting on the medical imaging committee. He stated that no dates had been set as yet for the first face-to-face meeting of the medical imaging committee. However, a teleconference had been scheduled for November 22.

Goal 2Responding to a query on Medical Imaging Team Day, L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien explained that Parliament Hill was extremely rigid about press conferences. The CAMRT had been granted a special privilege to bring in their entire team. She stated that the main concern with regard to Medical Imaging Team Day was making it more issues based and consideration was being given to hiring a consultant to manage the logistics, while the team would take care of the content.

With regard to CAMRT’s contribution towards Medical Imaging Team Day, L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that it was about $6,000, while the other partners contributed between $2 – 2,500.

S. Bague enquired into the amount of advance notice that could be given to members regarding the Medical Imaging Team Day press conference. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that a week’s notice was possible, as the times for press conferences were set. W. Martin-Gutjahr enquired about the possibility of live-streaming the press conference from the CAMRT website. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that it was closed circuit and was not a public feed.

Goal 3Referring to the recent presentations given on PLI to facilities in Ontario, E. Roppel requested that CAMRT office notify provincial directors in advance as to when and where these would be occurring, so that they were aware.

Goal 4S. Bague commented on the shortage of CPD courses for nuclear medicine and magnetic resonance, as reflected in feedback from the omnibus member survey. E. Dever spoke of the possibility of directing members to other organizations that provided these CPD courses. ACTION: E. Dever

Discussion moved to the appendices. Directors were advised that only issues related to the strategic plan had been included in the dashboard. A. Bolderston asked directors whether they still found the strategic initiative project update and the board dashboard useful. There was positive response from directors. She also enquired about making the dashboard accessible to the membership. M. Charest said she did not think the current set-up was the right matrix for the membership. She suggested posting a more appropriate document on the website for the members as part of the update to the member section. ACTION: M. Charest D. Murley said she believed it was the

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 4

responsibility of directors to disseminate information in the staff report that was applicable to members.

P. Munro referred to the certification exam statistics and said she saw no noticeable change in failure rates for IEMRTs. E. Dever stated that no significant change in failure rates would be seen for quite some time, and that the indicator of change would be in the number of rewrites, not the failure rates. This was a long term process. She also advised that all the exam preparation courses, except for one, were now online.

S. Bague suggested that in the World Congress Summary Report percentages should be used for geographic breakdown by province instead of numbers.

There followed an open discussion on whether any of the strategic initiatives projects had lost any of their value since they were developed, because of changes in the environment.

M. Given sought direction concerning the Future Technology Advisory Council (FTAC). S. Bague enquired into the difference between the Professional Practices Advisory Council (PPAC) and the Future Technology Advisory Council. M. Given explained that the PPAC was a ground level working group, while the FTAC was a high level think tank bringing forward ideas, such as policy development, hybrid imaging, and how technology evolution would be changing occupational health and safety for members, and also where to take these ideas. The PPAC could not perform this role.

M. Given advised that the MRT committee members for the FTAC had been selected, but he was still looking for external representatives. He enquired whether the board felt it was important to bring in external representatives. D. Murley said that having external representatives on the committee would provide access to expert views. She stated that she liked the fact that the FTAC would be developing white papers. P. Munro said she believed it was important to have a nuclear medicine physician who was broad minded on the council.

W. Martin-Gutjahr enquired how the advisory aspect would operate. M. Given stated that a workplan would be developed at a meeting of the MRT committee members, and that this would then be brought to the board.

R. Hesler enquired into what would be done with the information gathered, in terms of outcomes. He pointed out that a good deal of this kind of information was under the control of the provinces and health authorities. E. Dever stated that if the association were to move ahead with this group, they would provide information to the association as to what was going to happen in the future in practice. She stressed that the composition of this group had to be people who had this kind of expertise. The outcome would impact the educational component.

R. Hesler noted that at the moment this was a CAMRT-only project. He was of the opinion that as a starting place, the PPAC should begin the work, rather than launching into a large project, M. Given stated that he did not think the PPAC was at a level to

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 5

provide this information. E. Dever said that she did not view this as a role for educators at this time. She believed that the FTAC needed people who conversed with those involved with research through their attendance at various conferences.B. Badiuk stated that her vision for the council was in the realm of research and development. She said she saw it as acting as an environmental scan for future technology.

A. Bolderston asked M. Given if he had received enough feedback from the board to take to the group for their first meeting and then report back. M. Given said that he had.

R. Hesler enquired whether staff directors intended making any changes to the strategic plan, given the openness of the discussion at the National Council facilitated session. E. Dever shared that it had become apparent that the CAMRT would not be investigating mandatory CPD. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien spoke of looking at the wording of the strategic plan and perhaps making changes. M. Charest stated that based on comments coming out of the session, advanced practice framework and advanced practice certification might need to be reconsidered. M. Given agreed that he would have to look at this, but did not think it would prevent the project from moving forward. He stated that he did not want to make decisions that were emotional-based, but wanted to make decisions that were evidence-based.

S. Bague said she believed the association ought not to stop advancing the profession simply because it made the regulatory bodies uncomfortable. She believed that the regulatory bodies simply wanted to ensure that the association did things safely. M. Given expressed the belief that the advanced practice framework was in itself a white paper and it was the responsibility of the association to move the profession forward. Much work had been done on this project and he said he felt very secure that they had developed a role that was transferrable from province to province. However, they had to respect the regulators and make certain that they were on board.

J. Cyr wanted to know whether it was felt that the association had achieved its aim with regard to rebranding. K. Davis said she believed that it took time, but people were picking up the gauntlet as brand champions. P. Munro believed that rebranding had reached people who were interested, but wondered how to reach the others. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that for 2013 there would be a focussed evaluation and the development of a plan. Support was being given to groups at the local level. In the strategic plan there was an objective to examine the organization name. She stated that the association was waiting to see what the returns on their investments were before moving forward. S. Bague said she viewed rebranding as an ongoing activity. The question was whether the association should continue to spend on it, and whether it was effective.

E. Roppel stated that she had not seen evidence of rebranding in Ontario. She said she would prefer to see the association focus on one small area and work on this. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien stated that rebranding was dependent on local champions moving it forward. The association had made available a number of tools. She advised that the CAMRT had agreed to liaise with the new marketing person at the OAMRS.

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 6

S. Bague said she believed that rebranding had made an impact and that she had seen it in Alberta. She saw it starting with each individual. She stated that she would like to see some way for the patient to communicate with the CAMRT through the website. M. Charest reminded that it was made clear at the beginning that this was not going to be just a CAMRT initiative and that there had to be buy in by the provinces. CAMRT would provide tools and the provinces use their networks to spread the word. The CAMRT needed to know from the provinces what they were doing and whether they were using all the tools. The evaluation would determine this.

M. Jette shared that in Quebec there was evidence of rebranding; the images were used, but some physicians still did not know what rebranding was all about. She believed it would take some time to get there.

3.6 Directors’ Reports

Questions were invited on each director’s report.

BCA. Bolderston updated for K. Nystedt that some labour actions had already been resolved.

ABJ. Cyr enquired as to what decision was made with regard to holding the ACMDTT conference in larger centers. W. Martin-Gutjahr replied that ACMDTT conferences would be held in either Calgary or Edmonton.

SKIn response to an enquiry, K. Davis advised that no extra fee would be charged for registration payments made online with credit cards. The SAMRT was managing to absorb the fee.

J. Cyr asked whether the SAMRT was still receiving advertising emails from Maritime Travel. K. Davis replied that this was still occurring. M. Charest promised to contact Maritime about this.

ONIn response to an enquiry, E. Roppel advised that the OARM had still not made a decision on the OAMRS merger proposal.

NSC.A. Davis reported on an incident that occurred during MRT Week. This involved T-shirts with unsavory remarks on what an MRT really thought worn by a group of MRTs during a pub crawl. The T-shirt had the NSAMRT name on it, but this was not an NSAMRT initiative. The NSAMRT considered it contrary to the Image of Care campaign. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien stated that this kind of incident was the reason the association was trying to encourage brand champions in institutions, who would show other MRTs how it should be done.

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 7

NLL. Metcalfe updated directors on the NLAMRT’s meeting with the provincial government concerning legislation of the profession. She reported that two weeks ago the NLAMRT was contacted by the government who wanted them to expand on the answers to the questions they had already put forward in a first submission. The next meeting was in January 2013, and it was hoped that there would be a more positive outcome at that meeting.

Both P. Munro and K. Krueger reported that they liked the new reporting template for at-large members.

MOTION Murley/Roppel

To receive the directors’ reports.

CARRIED

3.7 Update on CEO Search The CEO Search Committee, which comprised the Executive Committee and M. Charest, had engaged the executive search firm of Morgan Leadership Search to assist it in recruiting and hiring a new CEO. The agreement was signed in September and the work was well in hand with a number of qualified, interested candidates. Mike Lupiano of Morgan Leadership Search was present at the board meeting to provide the board with an update.

Mr. Lupiano began his update with a background on himself and his firm. He stated that his firm worked almost exclusively in the not-for-profit sector. He had spoken to a number of stakeholders and had received feedback from them on the qualities they believed the new CEO should possess. The words that came up most often were “builds trust.” He reported that the candidates were excellent. There were proven leaders and people ready to get into leadership. This was why there were 16 candidates. Mr. Lupiano stated that normally he selected eight candidates. The goal of the Search Committee would be to narrow down these to about six people to interview. The interviews would take place on December 6 – 7 in Ottawa. After the interviews there would be some informal meetings with the selected six, as this was a prime way to find out more about an individual. From there the committee would make a final decision and then make a recommendation to the board. The firm would then attempt to find out the individual’s compensation requirement and would contact nine references – three superiors, three peers, and three subordinates. Notes would be prepared and given to the Search Committee when done. From there a letter of employment would be provided, and then a start date. The timeline to the person being in office would be about early February.

A. Bolderston advised that the Search Committee would be short-listing the candidates during a meeting on Saturday evening, November 17th following the board meeting. She thanked Mr. Lupiano for coming.

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 8

4. Governance

4.1 Review changes in the environment since February, 2011 environmental scan, and discuss recommendations for adjustments

A copy of the 2011 environmental scan had been circulated to board members. This had been a key background document for the development of the 2012-2014 strategic plan. Directors were asked to review the scan and the plan to identify areas where changes in the environment might suggest a different approach to some objectives.

Strategic Planning Chair, W. Martin-Gutjahr, invited feedback. Points noted were:

PLI now being offered by unions. Governments putting more money towards the private health sector.

R. Hesler was of the opinion that because the strategic plan was a living document, it might be beneficial to conduct a mini annual environment scan. There was agreement with this suggestion. The question arose as to whether it would be better to use already existing scans or hire a consultant. It was decided that staff directors would examine the environmental scan and decide whether it was necessary to hire a consultant. It was also decided that staff directors would go through the strategic plan and make any recommendations for changes. This would be done by the February board teleconference. ACTION: Staff Directors

G. MacPherson suggested that for future reference the board might find it useful to use a system called the LEAD Framework.

4.2 Update on accommodating to the new ‘Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act

M. Charest led directors through a document which set out the plan for CAMRT’s transition to the new Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act. She advised that the transition needed to be made by October 2014. A workgroup had been put together consisting of W. Martin-Gutjahr, D. Murley, P. Munro, M. Charest, and the new CEO when hired. She advised that the CAMRT Bylaws had been sent to a lawyer to see whether it contained any conflicts. One of the areas of change was that board directors would have to be elected by members at the annual general meeting. Proxies would also be investigated. M. Charest advised that the workgroup intended to take the full time and it was hoped to have members’ approval of the articles of continuance and the Bylaws by June 2014. If, by chance, the membership did not give approval, there was still enough time to make changes and call a special meeting of the membership for approval before the October 17, 2014, deadline. Regarding the question of whether the association would be shut down if for some reason approval was not obtained by the deadline; M. Charest advised that she had consulted with the Society of Association Executives, which had worked closely with Industry Canada on the Act. They had contacted Industry Canada on this question and were told that an association would not be shut down if there was a valid reason for an extension.

M. Charest stated that the workgroup planned to do a good deal of consulting with BoD Nov. 21, 2012 9

provincial organizations. She asked for a show of approval to proceed with the plan. Directors gave their approval.

Directors had also received a copy of the CAMRT’s statement of purpose, which would be included in the articles of continuance. M. Charest asked whether directors felt the statement was still applicable to CAMRT. R. Hesler suggested that the terminology “medical radiation technologists” might require revising to reflect the possible addition of other related disciplines. All agreed. Directors were in agreement with the remainder of the statement.

M. Charest said that she hoped to have something substantive to bring to the board at their meeting in May 2013 and also to the National Council next November. ACTION: M. Charest

4.3 Review Risk Management Plan

M. Charest advised that this document would be brought to the board every year for review. There was some discussion on how the election of directors by the membership would be managed. B. Badiuk stated that details of this would not be laid out in the plan, only the need for it.

MOTION Bague/K. Davis

To approve the Risk Management Plan, with amendments.

CARRIED

4.4 Approval of revised board manual

S. Bague had been tasked with the project of updating the Board Member Manual. The manual had been placed on the Adobe Acrobat site to allow directors to comment. S. Bague said that she was now looking for anything that had been overlooked during the review.

C.A. Davis noted that the manual stated that directors were selected by the provincial organizations in accordance with the board competency profile. She stated that she did not believe the NSAMRT followed this practice. Other directors also stated that it was not followed by their provincial organizations either. A. Bolderston commented that this section of the manual would be undergoing revision, due to the requirement of the new Not-for-Profit Corporations Act that required directors to be elected by the membership at the AGM.

C.A. Davis queried item (d), under Duties of Directors, which states that directors provide the CEO with a list of names of members who were willing to work with the CAMRT. She suggested that the words “on request” be added. B. Badiuk suggested that it state the list of names be given to CAMRT staff instead of specifying the CEO.

C.A. Davis suggested adding “supervisor” to the roles of the board chair, as the board

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 10

chair was also the CEO’s supervisor.

M. Charest asked whether directors wanted to continue receiving laser printed business cards. It was found that directors did not use the cards, so this would be discontinued. The President, however, received offset printed business cards, and this would continue.

S. Bague suggested including in the manual a code of conduct and conflict of interest statement for the board. She said she had obtained a template from a lawyer.

Some additional wording changes were made to the manual.

MOTION Bague/Badiuk

To accept in principle the Board Member Manual, as amended.

CARRIED

S. Bague asked for volunteers to work with her on updating the manual. R. Hesler and K. Davis volunteered. ACTION: R. Hesler & K. Davis

4.5 Approval of terms of reference of the Executive Committee

The title “Treasurer” was replaced by the title “Secretary-Treasurer.” MOTION Bague/Metcalfe

To approve the revised Terms of Reference for the Executive Committee with amendment.

CARRIED

A. Bolderston advised that the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting would now be posted on the board portal for directors.

4.6 Approval of proposed authority for review and revision of policy and procedures

S. Bague had also been tasked with the review and revision of CAMRT policies and position statements. The board was sent in directors’ correspondence of September 18, a copy of the current policies and position statements, with notations by then CEO, Chuck Shields, as to whether review and revision of a particular policy or position statement was the responsibility of board or staff. The board had been requested to approve this assignment of authority. However, not all directors had forwarded their approval.

R. Hesler suggested including in the risk management plan a statement ensuring that all policies were being followed. ACTION: M. Charest

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 11

A. Bolderston suggested also having a sexual harassment policy for the board. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien stated that this could be looked into. ACTION: L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien

C.A. Davis queried whether some position statements were not covered under the Best Practice Guidelines. A. Bolderston stated that this was a possibility.

S. Bague asked if the board agreed with the assignments. There was overall agreement with the assignment of responsibilities.

4.6.1 Process for review and revision of policies and position statements A process for review and revision of policies and position statements was presented to the board. M. Charest expressed doubt as to whether the operational policies could be reviewed and revised by staff by November 2013. R. Hesler agreed, stating that the timelines appeared to be a little tight. He suggested conducting a gap analysis as to which policies were needed and which were not. A. Bolderston agreed that the timelines could be more flexible.

S. Bague asked for volunteers to work on the board policies. K. Davis, G. MacPherson, and D. Murley volunteered. It was suggested that this particular project should be chaired by the Vice-President. All agreed. For the position statements, it was decided that the PPAC be tasked with their revision. ACTION: S. Bague, K. Davis, G. MacPherson, D. Murley, and W. Martin-Gutjahr; M. Given (the PPAC)

Directors were in agreement with the recommended approach for the ongoing review of policies. S. Bague recommended that all policies carry a review date. Directors were also in agreement with the recommended approach for new policy development. There would be an update on the revision of policies at the February board teleconference.

4.7 Approval of appointment of Chair, Professional Practices Advisory Committee

The board was asked to approve the appointment of Andre Patry as Chair of the Professional Practices Advisory Committee (PPAC).

MOTION Munro/Murley

To appoint Andre Patry as Chair of the Professional Practices Advisory Committee, effective January 1, 2013.

CARRIED

4.7.1 Appointment of board member to the Professional Practice Advisory Committee

M. Given asked for a board member to sit on the PPAC. G. MacPherson volunteered. ACTION: G. MacPherson

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 12

4.8 Approval of Terms of Reference for CAMRT representative to Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative (CBCSI)

The CAMRT representative to the National Committee for the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative (CBCSI), Shelley Kallos, had been approved through Director’s correspondence. The board was now requested to approve the Terms of Reference for this position.

MOTION Cyr/Jette

To approve the Terms of Reference for the representative to the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative, as amended.

CARRIED

4.9 Approval of Appointment of CAMRT representative to Assembly of Health Sciences Professions-CMA Conjoint Accreditation Services and Terms of Reference

E. Dever briefed the board that she had been elected by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) to chair the Assembly of Health Sciences Professions (AHSP). The CMA had given CAMRT the option of the Director of Education taking on two roles: that of chair and that of the CAMRT representative, or appointing another person as the representative.

Traditionally, the Director of Education had assumed the role of AHSP representative. All AHSP representatives were key people, mostly staff from their organizations who had to possess:

Knowledge and expertise related to the professional issues that impact accreditation – competency profiles, certification exams, etc.

Knowledge of the strategic issues facing the profession. An affiliation with the profession’s governing body.

After discussion with the CAMRT staff directors the decision had been made that it would be better to have a separate CAMRT representative. However that person needed to have the expertise and knowledge listed above. The voice at the table needed to be grounded in the global perspective and the impact of decisions on the profession.

E. Dever stated that CAMRT has an Education Advisory Council (EAC) where many of the topics mentioned were discussed and recommendations made on changes to procedure and policy or implementation of new policies. This allowed for discussion, debate and enhanced depth and breadth of knowledge. It had been felt that the chair of the EAC would be an appropriate person to appoint and would represent the CAMRT very well. Also, the Director of Education could always speak to CAMRT concerns.

E. Dever acknowledged that this process of directly appointing strayed from the normal selection process; however for this type of position the person must be well aware of many issues and their impact. The experience and knowledge gained as chair of the

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 13

EAC allowed for this and next to the Director of Education position their perspective was the most knowledgeable.

This rationale had been presented to the President and Past-President who agreed with the appointment of the chair of the EAC – Lorie Fisher.

Directors were now being asked to approve the Terms of Reference for the representative position.

MOTION Cyr/Murley

To approve the Terms of Reference for the representative to the AHSP- CMA Conjoint Accreditation.

CARRIED

4.10 Nominating Committee Report S. Bague invited questions on her report. L. Metcalfe referred to the report on the 2012 president-elect election and suggested it would be helpful to know how many people had voted provincially to-date, so that the provincial directors could encourage voting. M. Charest stated that this would not be possible, as voting was confidential.

S. Bague stated that she was looking for approval of Appendix A, a draft process for the election of the CAMRT President-elect. A sentence was added under the sub-heading “January 18” that stated “Questions not selected are responded to.” MOTION C.A. Davis/Martin-Gutjahr

To approve the process for the election of the CAMRT president-elect, as amended.

CARRIED

4.10.1 Approval of process for recruitment and appointment, Editor in Chief, Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences

L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien invited questions on the process. There was discussion on whether the Editor-in-Chief should be a CAMRT member. In response to a query, L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that CAMRT was still the owner of the journal; Elsevier was the publisher. A. Bolderston stated that the Editor-in-Chief reported to the CAMRT board and was a link to the journal. C.A. Davis asked whether the association would be limiting itself if it was decided that the Editor-in-Chief must be a CAMRT member rather than a person best qualified for the position. It was pointed out that John French had expressed that he did not believe the new Editor-in-Chief had to be a CAMRT member. W. Martin-Gutjahr said she believed that because the CAMRT wanted to be recognized globally, the call should be put out internationally.

MOTION K. Davis/C.A. Davis

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 14

To approve the process for the recruitment for the position of Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences.

CARRIED

A. Bolderston advised that the board was looking to recognize John French in some way. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien suggested that he be named the first emeritus Editor-in-Chief of the journal. It was an honour the board could bestow.

MOTION Badiuk/Munro

To appoint John French the first emeritus Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences.

CARRIED

4.11 Selection of two CAMRT board representatives for the CAMRT Foundation Board

The board was advised that Sandra Iftody, RTT CMD (CAMRT Foundation President) had requested that the CAMRT board appoint two representatives for the CAMRT Foundation Board. The current board representatives were L. Metcalfe and E. Roppel, both of whom had terms expiring December 31, 2012.

L. Metcalfe and E. Roppel both expressed the belief that the Foundation needed to be promoted more. L. Metcalfe recommended that the board representatives on the Foundation should report back to the CAMRT Board on what was happening on the Foundation. The question was raised as to whether this would be contrary to the belief that the Foundation should be at arms length to the CAMRT board. M. Charest pointed out that there was a difference between a report that was for information only and one that was for accountability. It was revealed that information about the Foundation was sent out in eblasts to the members.

D. Bennett and K. Krueger volunteered to be board representatives on the Foundation. ACTION: D. Bennett & K. Krueger

4.12 Modification to Expense Allowance Guide in Rules and Procedures

This was a housekeeping item. Directors were advised that as part of the Award for Early Professional Achievement, the awardee received a free CAMRT membership for the following year. It was felt that this should be included in the Rules and Procedures with the other award entitlements, currently listed within section 9a – Expense Allowance Guide.

MOTION Bague/K. Davis

To approve the amendment to the Expense Allowance Guide of the Rules and Procedures.

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 15

CARRIED

4.13 Decide on future board education activities

Directors were advised that it was the intention to provide the board with regular opportunities to develop their understanding of board duties and responsibilities and enhance their leadership skills. Input on the type of program that would be most meaningful for the June meeting would be helpful to obtain at the present meeting, so that planning could begin early in the new year. A. Bolderston asked directors to think about whether they would like facilitator Lyn McDonell to present an education session to the board. It was the general feeling that Lyn McDonell had a good grasp of CAMRT issues and would be a good facilitator. ACTION: A. Bolderston

4.14 Board Awards Sub-Committee

A. Bolderston advised that two volunteers were needed to sit on the Board Awards Sub-Committee, to replace L. Metcalfe, and W. Martin-Gutjahr. M. Jette and D. Bennett both volunteered. The other member of the committee was J. Cyr.ACTION: M. Jette & D. Bennett

5. Finance and Administration

5.1 Review of financial statements through the third quarter of 2011 and year-end forecast

M. Charest led directors through the summary Statement of Revenue and Expenditure. She invited questions not already covered by the Notes.

Education Advisory Council – S. Bague enquired why there had been no meeting of the committee this year. E. Dever responded that the committee chose to meet via teleconference instead of face-to-face meeting as a cost saving measure. They would, however, be meeting face-to-face next year.

Strategic Initiative Projects – M. Charest advised that there would be a change in this section because at the time the forecast was done, M. Given had hoped to have a Future Technology Symposium, but this had not occurred. Therefore, there would be an extra $10,000. M. Charest advised that there might also be an additional $6,000, which was money charged back to the Medical Imaging Team Day.

Investment Income – M. Charest reminded the board that she was required by the accounting rules to report on market value for investments.

M. Charest advised that a year-end surplus of about $25,000 was expected.

5.2 Consider and approve draft budget for fiscal year 2013

B. Badiuk led directors through the 2013 proposed budget. She invited questions on the statement.

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 16

RevenuesS. Bague enquired whether contributions had been received from the provincial organizations’ towards rebranding. M. Charest replied that initially rebranding was supposed to end this year, but due to the fact the evaluation phase had been deferred to 2013, a late decision had been made to defer contributions from the provinces.

ExpensesM. Charest advised that the Finance Committee had increased the relocation budget for the CEO because it had been too low.

Under Advocacy, Publications and Events, R. Hesler enquired into what was included in the publications line. He was advised that this included the journal, newsletter, the annual report, the website, and eblasts.

In response to a query on the difference between the costs for MRT Week for 2012 and 2013, L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that the same templates from last year had been utilized for 2012. However, this would not be done in 2013, therefore, the costs would be more.

Under CPD, J. Cyr questioned the high translation costs. E. Dever attributed this to a large number of translations for the website.

Strategic Initiatives Projects

Advanced Practice FrameworkA. Bolderston asked whether it was possible to see what the committee was working on before 2013. M. Given responded that the committee had to go through the draft first, and the board would see the draft at the end of 2012. The board would be part of the external stakeholders who would be invited to comment on the draft.

Best Practice GuidelinesS. Bague proposed that the BPGs become an ongoing item, instead of a special initiative project, similar to the competency profiles validation. M. Charest stated that it would probably become part of the core of the Professional Practices Department budget.

Online CPDIn response to a query regarding outsourcing, E. Dever advised that an RFP would be going out. There was still uncertainty as to which direction to proceed, so this would not start until later in 2013.

Advanced Practice CertificationM. Given promised to provide an update to the board probably in February, after feedback had been received from the provinces. He advised that he would delay sending out an RFP for the psychometric consultant until further investigation had been done.

Symposium – Future MRT Education Programming

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 17

S. Bague enquired into the number of people who would be on the group. E. Dever advised that there would be about 20 people, including representation from the disciplines, the board, deans, employers, government and the Ministry of Health. S. Bague suggested including also the chairs of the various advisory councils.

Lifecycle Guidelines for Medical Imaging Equipment in CanadaE. Roppel enquired as to the enforceability of the guidelines when they were completed. B. Badiuk answered that they would provide leverage to allow managers to use documents that were evidence-based. M. Given stated that it was a matter of disseminating the information to the managers. B. Badiuk advised that this project was being done with the collaboration of the CAR. The $10,000 amount was CAMRT’s contribution.

S. Bague enquired into the absence of ultrasound in the project. M. Given responded that ultrasound was not included because it was not part of the data collected by CIHI.

MOTION Badiuk/Metcalfe

To approve the draft budget for fiscal year 2013.

CARRIED

5.3 Approval of revised investments policy

A draft revised Investment Policy was submitted to the board for approval.

MOTION Bague/Munro

To approve the revised Investment Policy.

CARRIED

5.4 CAMRT use of Survey Monkey

The board was advised that the following concern had been raised over CAMRT’s use of Survey Monkey:

“The Survey Monkey tool is prohibited by many Canadian organizations as it violates Canadian privacy legislation. My understanding is that survey monkey houses its info in the USA and due to their homeland security laws this violates Canadian privacy law. I believe this is why there is a fire wall in many institutions against survey monkey. Should the CAMRT be using such a tool?”

M. Charest assured that Survey Monkey did not violate privacy laws in Canada. However, she believed that there was still a perception by some members that this was the case. She stated that although staff directors liked using Survey Monkey, they would be willing to look at other survey tools.

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 18

It was noted that C.A. Davis and P. Munro could not receive Survey Monkey at their institutions in Nova Scotia, because it was blocked. M. Charest said that the office would search for a survey tool that was comparable to Survey Monkey. M. Given stressed the importance of choosing a survey tool that had been around for some time. ACTION: M. Charest

6. Strategic Goal 1 – Ensure that MRTs are prepared to practice in an evolving health care system and environment of rapid technology change

Progress under this goal can be found under discussions in the staff report in item 3.5.

7. Strategic Goal 2 – Strengthen the identity, position and voice of the medical radiation technology profession

7.1 2013 Advocacy plan

L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien informed directors that this was an updated version of the advocacy plan that had been approved last year, with emphasis on current expectations of the key issues the association would be working on. She invited questions on the document. There none. MOTION Bague/Roppel

To accept the Advocacy Plan, as presented.

CARRIED

7.2 Approval of terms of reference of Advocacy Advisory Committee

L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien invited questions on the draft Terms of Reference for the Advocacy Advisory Committee.

D. Murley suggested being more exact in the number of members on the committee.

P. Munro enquired whether L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien was planning to wait until a new CEO was in office before moving forward with the committee. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien said this was a possibility, and that the committee could be activated at that time. She pointed out that if an imaging issue were to arise before then, there were individuals on the board who could be called upon for response. S. Bague said she did not think the activation of the committee needed to wait until a new CEO was in office, because this was an advisory committee to the Director of Advocacy, Communications and Events. All agreed.

L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that there were plans for the committee to meet electronically this year.

B. Badiuk queried the necessity for such a committee, and asked whether the information could be obtained elsewhere. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien replied that the

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 19

committee members would be the content providers as to what was going on in the field. The association needed people with this expertise. However, it would be determined whether there would be links to other sources. The committee complement might include one person from each discipline.

S. Bague enquired whether the committee would be developing position statements. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien responded that the main function of the committee would be to provide a framework, while others would suggest possible position statements. She stressed that the Advocacy Advisory Committee would not be replacing the Rebranding Committee. This committee was about approaching government and stakeholders at a political level. She advised that a call would be put out for at-large committee members. C.A. Davis suggested both advertising and approaching potential members directly.

S. Bague enquired about a measurement mechanism for the advocacy plan. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that a measurement mechanism was contained within the strategic plan.

R. Hesler and K. Davis volunteered for the board member positions on the committee. ACTION: R. Hesler & K. Davis

MOTION Bague/Cyr

To approve the Terms of Reference for the Advocacy Advisory Committee, with amendments.

CARRIED

7.3 Update on Council of the Federation

The board was directed to the staff report under item 3.5 for an outline of recent developments in the proposal to the Council of the Federation (CoF). A call with Perry Martin, adviser to the Council of the Federation Health Innovation Working Group, occurred on November 5. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that the CoF was ready to work on this proposal and identify three to five medical procedures, one of which would be diagnostic imaging. She stated that the association had suggested spine and back pain imaging. She stressed that the association had to be ready to move when CoF began consultation. She advised that there would be a HEAL meeting on December 11 and that HEAL was closely connected to the Council of the Federation.

R. Hesler remarked that a big issue was related to the cutting off of funding to imaging of the lumbar spine.

S. Bague enquired whether there were plans to develop a statement on appropriateness. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien agreed that this was an area that they should be focussing on. M. Given advised that the subject was covered in the Best Practice Guidelines. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien stated that a position statement was seen as having a little more weight than a guideline. R. Hesler agreed, and suggested including in the position

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 20

statement that there was a guideline available.

8. Goal 3 – Strengthen the culture of professionalism among MRTs

8.1 Receive and discuss report of Maintenance of Competence Working Group

E. Dever briefed the board that following the June 2012 board meeting, the workgroup meet by teleconference. It was the consensus of the group that to create a sample professional portfolio would take extensive work and that the guidelines, with resources given, provided the information required for an individual to create a professional portfolio. The time required to develop a sample resume, performance appraisals, work samples, learning activities, sample awards, certificates etc., would exceed the timeframe for the project.

Additions had been made to the content of the guidelines document providing information on the value of a professional portfolio, as well as adding items to the list of information that should be in a portfolio. Additional resource links had also been provided.

The workgroup had also recommended a title change to better reflect the content of the guidelines document: “Continuing Competence through Professional Development: A guide for development of programming and a professional portfolio”.

E. Dever advised that the workgroup had recommended that the document be accepted as the final guidelines document. Following acceptance, more graphic work would be added. The project remained on schedule with release of the document in January 2013. E. Dever emphasized that this was a guidelines documents only and that if the board approved the document the schedule would be maintained.

B. Badiuk expressed her appreciation for the document, as Manitoba was a non-regulated province.

J. Cyr enquired whether there were any plans to translate the document. E. Dever acknowledged that this was an important document, but stated that CAMRT had to look at its plans for translation of documents.

MOTION Badiuk/Cyr

To approve in principle and with upgrades the document titled: Continuing Competence through Professional Development: A guide for development of programming and a professional portfolio.

CARRIED

9. Goal 4 – Achieve effective engagement with members and key stakeholders

9.1 Review outcome from the facilitated discussions at National Council November 14 meeting and discuss next steps

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 21

A. Bolderston gave a summary report of discussions at the National Council meeting that took place prior to the board meeting. She advised that the first day consisted primarily of a facilitated session that examined the roles of the CAMRT, provincial associations, and regulated bodies and who was responsible for what. The second day focused on business. The issue of delineation of roles had arisen around the reviewing of the National-Provincial Agreement (NPA). It had been a very engaging day and participants were open and honest in their comments. There had been a sense of hope by participants that all parties could move forward and leave issues that were in the past in the past. A. Bolderston stated that the facilitator, Lyn MacDonell, had a good grasp of the issues and would be providing a written report which would be circulated to everyone.

A. Bolderston invited directors who were also present at the session to give their impressions. D. Murley stated that there had been clarity of the function of each group. The facilitator had also given a deadline for making some of the changes with a draft of the NPA by November 2013. W. Martin-Gutjahr said that she came away excited that CAMRT would be moving forward positively. There was agreement by incoming directors and staff directors who also attended the session. It was felt that the whole board could have benefited by being present at the session.

9.2 Review PA recommendations from November National Council meeting

A. Bolderston advised that during the business portion there was discussion on changing the structure of the provincial organization meetings at the annual general conference. It was felt by the provincial presidents that it was not necessary for them to meet on their own for a full day, instead they suggested a full day National Council meeting and a half day roundtable stakeholders’ meeting. The decision had been made to try this as a pilot for next year.

W. Martin-Gutjahr was of the opinion that it would be beneficial for the whole board to be present at the National Council and stakeholders’ meetings. There was discussion regarding this idea. A. Bolderston stated that she would look at how these meetings were framed. ACTION: A. Bolderston

A. Bolderston reported that CIHI gave a presentation to the National Council. The decision was made at the meeting to put together a small workgroup to iron out the problems the provincial organizations were experiencing as a result of the CIHI data collection.

9.3 Approval of Statement on Inclusion And Diversity and discuss approach for dissemination

This statement had originally been drafted at a meeting of interested members during the 2012 World Congress/AGC and then revised by the CAMRT executive and staff. It was then provided to the board in late August for review and comment. The current circulated statement reflected comments received.

The following changes were made to the statement:

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 22

To change the word “they” in the second sentence to “members.” To delete the word “demonstrate” in the second sentence.

MOTION Martin-Gutjahr/Murley

To approve the Statement on Diversity and Inclusion, as amended.

CARRIED

Discussion ensued on how to share the statement with the appropriate stakeholder audience. It was decided to post it on the CAMRT website with an eblast to members notifying them that it was there. M. Charest said she saw the statement as a broadening of the values statement. S. Bague suggested also incorporating the statement in a document. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that the office put out a regular update on CAMRT activities and the statement could be placed in there. She said that there were various ways in which the statement could be disseminated.

There was discussion about continuing to have some activity at the AGC on diversity and inclusion. A. Bolderston stated that she would speak to Fiona Mitchell about this, as Fiona was the diversity and inclusion champion. ACTION: A. Bolderston

9.4 Update on discussions with CSDMS

A. Bolderston stated that this all began in June at the AGC where she had a conversation with Wendy Lawson, President of the CSDMS on a possible merger with the CAMRT in the future. She had found W. Lawson open to idea, but W. Lawson had wanted something more firm. A. Bolderston stated that she had not wanted to put anything in writing as yet. W. Lawson had said that she would put the proposal on the meeting agenda of her board. A. Bolderston advised that the CSDMS had their board meeting two weeks ago, but there had been no word back as yet from W. Lawson. She had been trying to connect with her, but had been advised by the interim executive director of the CSDMS that W. Lawson was extremely busy. This was where things presently stood.

9.5 Collaboration : CAMRT and the Section for Magnetic Resonance Technologists (SMRT), International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)

M. Given advised that he had been working with the SMRT for the last two years trying to create some kind of formal relationship with them. He had spoken to them about some areas of collaboration. Currently, they were in a position to move forward with some of these ideas. A speaker exchange had been suggested for 2014 as an opening, and CAMRT would reciprocate. M. Given stated that if the board was interested in this, he would contact the SMRT. There was agreement by directors. ACTION: M. Given

P. Munro suggested also doing something similar with the SNMMI. M. Given advised that he was working towards this as well.

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 23

S. Bague stated that one of the goals she would like to see in forging a relationship with these groups would be for CAMRT members to have access to their CPD courses at their member rates, because there were few nuclear medicine and magnetic resonance CPD courses offered by CAMRT.

9.6 Canadian Radiation Protection Association (CRPA) liaison

M. Given advised that he would be looking into creating a liaison relationship with the CRPA. He and L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien had discussions with CRPA officials about sharing of the CAMRT journal and some shared resources. He stated that he would like to see a liaison position established for a direct link. He advised that the CRPA already had three CAMRT members on their board.

M. Charest suggested possibly sharing the CAMRT radiation safety listserv with the CRPA. It was felt that this was a good idea. ACTION: M. Charest

10 Annual General Conferences

10.1 Annual General Conference review

L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that Heather Michael, the Conference Manager, had begun to do a review of past conferences to identify a trend. L. Kallhood had also provided some helpful conference information. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien stated that it appeared that CAMRT conferences had turned into a conference of the leaders of the profession, and the registration fee was having a negative impact on regular members. The CAMRT needed to look at how it selected locations and also how to keep prices down. She was continuing to research in this area and advised that some members who completed the conference evaluation had offered to be a virtual focus group. She invited the board to also be a focus group. The report would be provided in June next year.

A straw poll was conducted on whether it was felt CAMRT conferences should be held to make a profit. R. Hesler was of the opinion that as part of non-dues revenue stream, conferences should be expected to make money. He said this could be looked upon as a minor profit center and needed to be examined to see how it fitted into the culture of the association.

E. Roppel said that she would like to see the basic conference budget breaking even and any money being made coming from sponsorships. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien stated that CAMRT conferences were well supported by industry and did well in sponsorships. However, there was no great capacity to grow sponsorships.

L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that the review also included looking at location. W. Martin-Gutjahr suggested that the review also include looking at joint conferences and whether they were worthwhile.

M. Charest advised that in the five years she had been at CAMRT, the conference had always generated a profit, but not what had been budgeted.

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 24

C.A. Davis suggested scaling back on the support given to presenters as a way to keep costs down.

10.2 Update on 2015 Joint Conference plan

This was reported on in the staff report under item 3.5. L. O’Callaghan-O’Brien advised that the 2015 joint conference would be held in Montreal with the CAR, OTIMROEPMQ and the SCFR. The Canadian Interventional Radiology Association (CIRA) and the CSDMS had also been invited, but CIRA would be involved with an international conference and CSDMS relied on the profits from their conferences and were moving ahead on their own.

A conference committee meeting was being planned for December 12 with a draft agreement.

10.3 Decision for location of the 2016 conference

A. Bolderston advised that there had been some confusion as to the location for the 2016 conference, because at the June AGM, the BCAMRT had invited the CAMRT to host the conference in Vancouver. The NSAMRT was in fact next in line to host the conference.

MOTION Bague/Munro

To accept the invitation from the NSAMRT to hold the 2016 conference in Halifax.

CARRIED

11. Next meeting dates and locations

11.1 February 2013 board teleconference

The board 1st quarter teleconference would take place on February 26, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. EST

11.2 Update on meeting dates for May 2013 , St. John’s

The conference dates for St. John’s would be one day earlier than the usual schedule. That is, the conference would open on Wednesday, May 22 and end on Saturday, May 25. This, unfortunately, meant that the board meeting would have to take place on Monday, May 20 (Victoria Day) and Tuesday, May 21. Following the usual schedule, that would place the final board meeting on Friday, May 24.

11.3 Decision on dates for November 2013 meeting, Ottawa

Following the usual date pattern, this would be Friday, November 15 and Saturday, November 16, with the National Council meetings occurring on Wednesday, November 13 and Thursday, November 14.

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 25

12. Other Business

12.1 CARO Membership Committee

C.A. Davis stated that about a year ago, CARO had extended an invitation to CAMRT to be a member of their Membership Committee. C.A. Davis had been selected to sit on this committee. She advised that the committee had since met by teleconference and face-to-face. At the last meeting they had talked about trying to get more radiation therapists to join CARO. They wanted to send out a survey to radiation therapists and physicists across Canada asking why they were not joining CARO. C.A. Davis said that she received an email a few days ago with a draft of the survey, which she had circulated to the board. She had some concerns about some of the questions. In her reply to CARO she notified them that she would be attending a CAMRT board meeting in the next week and asked what their plans were for dissemination of the survey. She was told that they would keep her posted. She had asked to discuss the survey with the CAMRT board. Directors were asked for their opinion on the survey questions.

M. Charest enquired whether CARO offered PLI. C.A. Davis replied that she did not believe they did. M. Charest commented that the survey could be viewed as a slight external threat.

W. Martin-Gutjahr expressed concern with the question that asked if a respondent was a member of CAMRT, and the references that followed.

S. Bague said that she saw the survey as a threat but also as an opportunity. She stated that if CARO were to ask CAMRT to send out the survey to members, the questions would have to be reworded. However, if this was simply data collection, then CAMRT should also be able to send something to CARO members. M. Charest stated that she would be uncomfortable sending out the survey to CAMRT members.

A. Bolderston requested that C.A. Davis obtain more information. ACTION: C.A. Davis

12.2 OAMRS correspondence

Before discussion on this item began both R. Hesler and E. Roppel absenced themselves from the meeting room, to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.

A. Bolderston informed the board that she had received a letter from Veronica Nelson, Chair of the OAMRS board stating that the OAMRS would be withdrawing from the National-Provincial Agreement (NPA) because it was not meeting their needs. A. Bolderston noted that, unfortunately, the timing of this letter was not the best, as the CAMRT was trying to forge a new relationship with the OAMRS and leave the old issues behind. She said that in discussions with R. Hesler he had indicated that the letter had come from the OAMRS board and had not come from him. He was willing to go back to the OAMRS board and say that the National Council had just gone through a facilitated session at which there had been good discussion and consensus to move forward to creating a better relationship between the CAMRT, provincial organizations, and regulated bodies, and ask them to not withdraw at this time, but to

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 26

work on a new agreement.

A. Bolderston advised that she had written a letter back to V. Nelson stating that the CAMRT was disappointed, but based on discussions that took place at the meeting of the National Council that week, they were working on something to meet everyone’s needs. She said that R. Hesler had spoken to V. Nelson and that he believed the letter would be withdrawn.

MOTION Bague/Metcalfe

To adjourn the meeting.

CARRIED

The meeting ended on Saturday, November 17, at 3:47 p.m.

BoD Nov. 21, 2012 27