Meeting Minutes

Nominating Committee
Conference Call
November 23, 2000 (12:00 - 13:00 EST)
Ottawa, Ontario

Participants

1. Progress Report on Institute Advisory Board (IAB) Selection Process
   Elizabeth Dickson gave an update on the four step selection process for the IAB membership which had been approved by the CIHR Executive Committee. She indicated the first step of the review process would be completed by November 24th. Eighteen review committees had been constituted by sector, chaired by CIHR staff members, who are familiar with and who work within those sectors. Each review committee was mandated to review the strengths of the candidates, identify any possible gaps in membership for each institute and recommend additional candidates, if required. Feedback from the chairs of each committee has indicated the review process has worked very well, with committee members having little difficulty determining the strength of candidates in relation to an A-B-C rating scale.

   By November 24th, the Scientific Directors will have been sent a list of all the candidates for their Institute's IAB, along with the results from the review committee; including the rating and comments on each candidate, specific comments on gaps in capacity, and any additional names suggested by the review panels. Scientific Directors will study these results and come to the meeting of December 4-6th prepared to discuss with the President, their advice for IAB membership for their Institute, including gaps, suggestions of additional names, as well as recommendations for chairs of their IAB.

   The outcome of these discussions will be brought forward to the Nominating Committee which is scheduled to meet the morning of December 5th to review the final IAB lists prior to presenting its report to the Governing Council the next day.

   Members of the Nominating Committee expressed satisfaction with the progress report, noting the integrity and transparency of the IAB selection process. In order to prepare the GC for a review of the final IAB membership list, it was proposed that a preliminary package of membership information be sent to them prior to their meeting of December 5-6th, with the proviso that a final membership list will be submitted at the GC meeting. The Nominating Committee also agreed that should the GC require more time that what is allotted at their December 5-6th meeting time to review and approve the final IAB membership lists, a GC conference call would be scheduled a week after the December 5-6th.

   The draft terms of reference for Institute Advisory Boards was also reviewed with two suggestions made:

   1. Change the membership term from two to three years.

   2. To not pre-determine a reporting mechanism on how the IAB will report to the Governing Council.

   Next Steps:

   • A preliminary package of membership information for each Institute Advisory Board will be sent to the Governing Council the week of November 27th, along with a note indicating the final roster list and statistics (gender, region, language, representation of CIHR's four themes) will be submitted to the GC as part of the Nominating Committee's report on December 6th.

   • On behalf of the Nominating Committee, Denise Alcock will meet with Scientific Directors at their meeting of December 4th to receive and discuss with them and the President, their advice about IAB membership.

   • The Nominating Committee will meet on December 5th from 10:00 - 12:00 to finalize their report on IAB membership to the GC.

2. Creation of a CIHR Standing Committee on Ethics
   The Nominating Committee will bring forward to the Governing Council the terms of reference for the creation of a CIHR Standing Committee on Ethics. The following rationale will be given:

   • Attention to ethics and ethical matters in health research is written throughout the CIHR Act. The creation of a Standing Committee on Ethics early in CIHR's mandate would send a positive message to the research community and Canadian public.

   • The Working Group on Ethics have taken on such a role in light of the absence of a Standing Committee on Ethics.

   • A number of issues are quickly coming forward for which the oversight and advice of a Standing Committee would be useful to the Governing Council.

3. Creation of a CIHR Standing Committee on the Oversight of Grants and Awards Competitions The Nominating Committee will bring forward to the Governing Council the terms of reference for the creation of a CIHR Standing Committee on the Oversight of Grants and Awards Competitions (SCOGAC). The following rationale will be given:

   • There currently exists no oversight committee which can review the recommendations of the peer review panels for competition results. The next competition results must be approved by the Governing Council in January, 2001.

   • The creation of a SCOGAC will relieve the Governing Council of the task of reviewing all of the detailed work which would normally be undertaken by an oversight committee.

   • The creation of a SCOGAC will reassure the research community that oversight of peer review panel recommendations will be conducted following principles of fairness, equanimity and inclusiveness.

   • The creation of a SCOGAC allows the Governing Council to exercise its governance function as final arbitrator of competition results, if required.

   The Nominating Committee noted that the activities of the Working Group on Programs and Peer Review will have a significant impact on the operations of SCOGAC.

4. Nominating Process for GC Members
   The facts presented were as follows:

   • The terms of six members of the Governing Council will be up for renewal on June 7th, 2001;

   • GC members can only serve two consecutive terms;

   • All Governing Council members are Order-in-Council appointments; that is, they are appointed to hold public office by the federal government;

   • The GC Order-in-Council appointment process can take from six to eight weeks, or longer.

   Outcome of subsequent discussion included:

   • The Governing Council should put forward its best advice on the appointment of six members to the federal government;

   • The nominating committee's report on the appointment of six members must be approved by the Governing Council at its March, 2001 meeting in order to meet the federal government time lines for the Order-in Council appointment process;

   • The nominating process for determining the replacement of Governing Council members whose terms are completed is an opportunity for the Governing Council to evaluate itself; that is, to evaluate its membership on the basis of strengths, weaknesses, and gaps.

   Next Steps

   1. There is a need to establish an evaluation process for the nomination of members to the Governing Council, prior to beginning to put forward names of candidates. Solicit advice on how to establish an evaluation process from the Governing Council and from consultants with expertise in such areas of governance evaluation.