ACEP Clarifies Campaign Rules


By James M. Cusick, MD, FACEP
Chair, Candidate Forum Subcommittee of the ACEP Council

ACEP is a member-driven organization with a representative body of our peers – the ACEP Council – chosen through component bodies, including our chapters (1 representative per 100 members), our Sections of Membership, and other aligned organizations.

Each year, this body democratically votes to establish ACEP policy and elect leadership positions. Candidates present themselves to the Council through written statements, scheduled speeches, and unrehearsed Question and Answer sessions during the Candidate Forum, which is open to all members. Elections must be fair, follow guidelines applicable to all, and be free of undue influence or pressure on candidates.

The ACEP Council’s Candidate Forum Subcommittee recently performed its annual review of the campaign rules to ensure a fair campaign and elections process for all Board of Directors and President-elect candidates. The changes were approved by the Council Steering Committee.

This year, restrictions on the use of social media were substantially relaxed to allow forms of communication most of us use on a daily basis.

In addition, protections were incorporated into the rules to keep candidate interviews in ACEP publications. Our goal is to avoid candidates being put in the position of commenting on College policy without adequate preparation and to ensure that the campaign process is fair and equal for all candidates.

Certain candidates may unfairly benefit from coverage in non-ACEP publications, while some may be disadvantaged. In order to ensure a fair election, campaign questions and the vetting of candidates is the responsibility of ACEP, its Council and its Council Committees.

If there are specific questions you would like asked of the candidates prior to the election, please send them to communications@acep.org. The Candidate Forum Subcommittee will consider them, the selected questions will be posed to candidates and their responses will be made public.

Elections will occur during the Council meeting on Oct. 26 in Chicago. The Nominating Committee has selected the final slate of candidates for 2014:

President-Elect Candidates
Jay Kaplan, MD, FACEP
Robert O’Connor, MD, FACEP
Rebecca Parker, MD, FACEP

Board of Directors Candidates (4 positions to be filled)
Stephen Anderson, MD, FACEP (WA)
Jon Mark Hirshon, MD, FACEP (MD)
Hans House, MD, FACEP (incumbent – IA)
Mark Mackey, MD, FACEP (incumbent – IL)
John Rogers, MD, FACEP (incumbent – GA)
Mark Rosenberg, DO, FACEP (NJ)

 

  1. #1 by Mark Plaster MD - June 26th, 2014 at 12:26

    “In addition, protections were incorporated into the rules to keep candidate interviews in ACEP publications. Our goal is to avoid candidates being put in the position of commenting on College policy without adequate preparation…” These rules were added specifically to prevent Dr. Greg Henry, Past President of ACEP, and regular author for Emergency Physicians Monthly, from interviewing the candidates in a webinar format and asking them questions of vital importance to the entire College. This kind of message censorship in unwise and not in the best interest of the College membership. Our leadership will be representing us to the larger world on issues of national importance. If they are unable to represent us with clarity and poise, without the message management of ACEP, we, the membership, should know that. To be honest, I believe that each and every one of these candidates is fully capable of standing and speaking on their own (and more than 2 minutes as the rules allow). ACEP leadership needs to get out of their way and let them speak without fear of retribution. Emergency Physicians Monthly has no interest in supporting one candidate over another. But we have a huge interest in making sure each candidate for leadership is fully vetted by the membership. Visit epmonthly.com for more discussion of this topic.

  2. #2 by Charles A. Pilcher MD FACEP - July 6th, 2014 at 16:34

    I agree with Dr. Plaster. The limitation on candidate interviews is poorly thought out and needs immediate revision. You probably had some good thought in mind, but this is counter-productive to an open election.

(will not be published)
*

  1. No trackbacks yet.