Accusations are flying and hard feelings are evident as the Delta Hospice Society grapples with the issue of legally assisted death.
The non-profit society’s annual general meeting at Harris Barn last week was a packed affair that was described by one individual who took part as “a gong show.”
The board, criticized for changing the deadline for new members to be eligible to vote at the AGM, was forced to cancel the proceedings after the number of ballots cast was greater than the number of members signed up to vote. A recount confirmed that result, which invalidated the results and will require a new election to be scheduled.
The board was also accused of trying to stack the leadership of the society with those who support the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program, which is now legal in Canada, be provided in its entirety at the Delta Hospice Society’s Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner.
However, others are claiming the opposite is happening, that those philosophically opposed to MAiD are looking to gain control of the board.
The society was also accused of a lack of leadership with key personnel leaving or being dismissed, including longtime executive director Nancy Macey, who started the society but is opposed to assisted death being provided at the hospice in Ladner.
The Optimist this week asked Macey for comment.
Having sought legal advice, she noted she can only say that she and her husband attended the meeting as members to vote, but that’s the extent of her involvement now.
“I have walked away from the organization at this point and am not involved in recruitment of members or other matters of the AGM or operations. The Delta Hospice Society belongs to our community and I have passed it on to those who care about maintaining the values and culture that have made the organization so special. My hope is that the community keeps the vision alive,” Macey said.
Board president Jim Levin told the Optimist that as far as the complaint that voting rights were denied, the board had a specific cut-off date of Oct. 1, the day before the AGM was announced, for all new memberships.
“We have never in our history experienced such a significant surge in memberships, so as a board, we needed to put a clear deadline on membership applications in order for staff to be able to manage the administration of this additional and time-consuming work on top of their existing duties. There was no denial of AGM voting rights to members whose memberships were approved before this deadline,” he said.
As far the board’s lawyer doing all the talking at last Tuesday’s AGM, Levin responded, “The DHS board did have our lawyer present, however, she was present to clarify points within our draft bylaws and to address any point-of-order issues associated to the meeting. With nearly 200 people in attendance, we prepared as best we could for this meeting and we felt that she, as a subject matter expert, was best to answer highly detailed questions from the membership.”
Also asked about a member of Fraser Health sitting with the board during the session, Levin explained, “Fraser Health did have a representative in attendance. Fraser Health is the main funding source for the Irene Thomas Hospice, and as our key partner we felt it was appropriate for the representative to be in attendance as an observer. A focus for the DHS board is to build a positive relationship with Fraser Health, particularly as our population ages, placing increased pressure on the hospice and the services we provide.”
Also responding to a complaint a board member sought re-election, even though bylaws stipulate their term expired, Levin explained they do have a board member who had served prior to the creation of a bylaw stipulating an eight-year maximum. That board member was grandfathered, which was approved by the board of the day, and is in the middle of a two-year term and not up for re-election.
This Monday, members received a condemnatory letter from acting executive director Sharon Farrish, which will no doubt add fuel to the fire.
Farrish was highly complimentary of DHS staff members for their passion and dedication, while critical of recent distractions by what she called “disruptive members” whose actions she said are now starting to impact services and morale, forcing the society to spend thousands on legal fees.
“The aggressive and bullying approach by some members and member applicants, which was witnessed by many, is unacceptable. As noted in a recent email to me from a DHS member, these disruptive members appear to be driven by vengeance and personal reasons, not by what will serve our patients and families who access these services.
“In the past few days, I’ve heard from many staff and volunteers about how upset they are by the actions of some members at the AGM.
“There is an angst amongst staff and volunteers; many have expressed uncertainty about the future of this organization. I know many were at the AGM and are closely watching the outcome of AGM and election in order to determine their own future with Delta Hospice Society. This is of great concern as our staff and volunteers are our most valuable asset, and without their dedication and commitment, our services could not continue,” she wrote.
As far as MAiD, patients at the Irene Thomas Hospice wishing for medically-assisted death currently have to be taken to another location for the life-ending procedure.
Fraser Health was asked whether it is now requiring all hospice facilities that receive funding to provide the complete service.
“As we have previously shared, we understand this is a very difficult and emotional issue for people.
We need to remember that at the heart of all of this is the patient. With this in mind, we continue to work with all of our community partners to move forward to find the best solution for everyone,” a spokesperson stated.
“We understand there are controversies surrounding this legal obligation and where and how to implement this. Hospice care is a critical part of the continuum of care,” the spokesperson stated.
“We respect that individuals and faith-based health care organizations can conscientiously object and not participate in the direct provision of medically assisted deaths, while providing safe and timely transfers for patients for further assessment and discussion of care options, if required.”
