Voting is Open: A Final Analysis and Recommendation for the RACP EGM
Offering an Alternative Vision for Reforms
Fellows and Trainees,
Voting for the Extraordinary General Meetings is now open. The RACP President, Professor Jennifer Martin, has made her final video pitch, framing the Board’s proposed constitutional changes as the only way to “end conflict and mistakes” and bring “stability” to our College.
This is a critical moment. The arguments have been made, and now the decision rests with us, the members. This article offers a final analysis of the Board’s position, my clear voting recommendations, and a positive, alternative vision for reform. For full context, it builds on my previous work on this crisis:
My initial analysis from August, The RACP’s Reckoning: A House Divided Cannot Stand, which diagnosed the crisis and captured the unfiltered member reaction.
My (UPDATED) Open Letter to RACP Fellows, which broke down the competing narratives and the specifics of the Board’s proposed changes.
In the interest of transparency and fostering dialogue, I want to let readers know that I have put the core member concerns outlined in my articles directly to both RACP President, Professor Jennifer Martin, and President-elect, Dr. Sharmila Chandran. Professor Martin reached out to provide the important clarification that the College has not blocked the President-elect from contacting members. While she has not addressed the other concerns with me directly, the most recent email to members does acknowledge the desire for a ‘member-centred’ College, ‘streamlined training pathways,’ and ‘stronger advocacy’. I have also reached out to Dr. Chandran with a series of questions based on member feedback and she has indicated she will respond shortly. This post will be updated with any further information as it is received.
The President’s Final Pitch (and the apparent Disconnect)
In her latest communication, the President argues that separating the roles of President and Chair is essential to professionalise our governance and stop the “Boardroom disputes” that have damaged our reputation. In a significant concession to member feedback, she also notes that the Board has “postponed a vote on a Nominations Committee - because we heard feedback that you were uneasy”.
While this pause is welcome, it doesn’t change the fundamental direction of a reform package that I believe is the wrong solution for our College. The core issue remains: the proposed changes are part of a broader vision that systematically reduces member representation and democratic control. The decision to disable comments on the YouTube video, while understandable, is symbolic of the very problems we face. It unfortunately reinforces the perception that the leadership is hesitant to engage with direct member feedback at this critical time.
Voting Recommendations
My recommendations are based on a simple principle: our College is a fellowship of peers, not just a corporation.
Resolution 1 (Constitutional Changes): Recommendation – VOTE NO
The Board’s proposal to separate the President and Chair roles is framed as an adoption of modern ‘best practice’ in corporate governance. From a purely corporate perspective, this argument has merit. However, the RACP is not a typical corporation; it is a professional fellowship, and applying a purely corporate solution to a democratic, member-led body is the wrong approach.
A corporation’s board is accountable to shareholders. Our College’s Board must be accountable to its members, and its legitimacy comes directly from our democratic mandate. The Board’s plan prioritises operational stability at the cost of this democratic accountability, risking a top-down bureaucracy where members are managed rather than represented.
Crucially, we can achieve improved governance without sacrificing member control. The current constitution already allows the Board to appoint up to three directors with special skills to fill any expertise gaps. The problem isn’t a lack of a mechanism to bring in skills; the problem is that the proposed reforms use the ‘skills’ argument to justify diluting the elected majority and removing key representative roles, like that of the dedicated Trainee Director.
Therefore, I urge a ‘NO’ vote. It is a vote against a flawed, corporate-style model and a clear message that our College’s democratic principles are not negotiable.
Resolutions 2 & 3 (Removing Directors): Recommendation – No Recommendation
I am making no recommendation on how to vote on the resolutions to remove Dr. Chandran and Dr. Buckmaster. My advocacy has focused on systemic issues and the broken process where the Board bypassed its own formal, evidence-based disciplinary procedures. Without the full, verifiable facts, which are now before the Fair Work Commission, it is impossible for members to make an informed decision and risks playing into personality politics. A “clean slate” may be appealing, but it is up to each member to decide based on the limited information available.
A Better Way Forward: A Positive Agenda for Reform
Voting NO is not a vote for the status quo; it is a demand for better, more democratic reform. Instead of the Board’s plan, here is what we should be advocating for:
1. A Member-Led Skills Advisory Panel: Transform the Nominations Committee concept from a binding ‘gatekeeper’ into a non-binding advisory panel with a majority of Fellows. It would assess candidates’ skills but have no veto power, respecting the members’ right to choose from all eligible candidates.
2. Protect and Enhance Elected Representation: Constitutionally protect the dedicated, elected Trainee Director position and maintain the current number of elected Fellows on the Board. This ensures the Board truly represents the members it serves.
3. Entrench Due Process: Amend the constitution to make the Board Charter By-Law’s disciplinary process the sole and mandatory pathway for addressing director conduct. This would end the use of political manoeuvres like non-binding no-confidence votes.
4. A By-Law for Member Transparency: Mandate the publication of detailed Board minutes, require annual “town hall” meetings with members, and demand a “Member Impact Statement” before any future fee increases.
This vote is about the soul of our College. I strongly urge every Fellow and Trainee to cast your vote. This is our opportunity to reject a path that reduces our voice and instead demand a future built on genuine transparency, accountability, and member-led governance.
Disclaimer: This article is an opinion and analysis piece written in my capacity as a concerned Fellow of the RACP. It is intended as an open letter to the membership to provide a summary of publicly available information regarding the current governance crisis and to advocate for greater transparency and member participation. While any strong critique can be perceived as disruptive, I believe that advocating for transparency and proper governance is a fundamental professional responsibility and a necessary attempt to uphold the standards of our College, not diminish them. The views expressed are the author's own and are based on the sources listed in the references.