This page is meant as a jump-off point for some Busser-specific pages. Their content may indirectly help the project and can be migrated to other project pages at suitable stages.






Unrelated local issues:

  • scope of activities: does the entire group inherit responsibility for all activities that had been done by all members at inception, for example if single individuals do clinics in cities ABC, or consult on special clinical problems XYZ that may not be of general interest, does the entire group inherit those obligations on an ongoing basis
  • contingencies for growth in volume (workload):
    • pre-specifying limits
    • contingencies for when the group is spread thin ("subcontracting"?)
  • impacts of "ranks" and "years worked" on grid levels
    • do we wish rank to define (limit) the lifetime upper level of the grid level that can be achieved, in other words irrespective of number of years worked?
      • if so, what size of impact do we wish it to have... smallish, e.g.must be full professor to attain the top level, and assoc prof to attain the 2nd-from-top level?
    • at what point do we commit to the value/impacts of increment in ranks above instructor (one grid level?), and the impact of years worked (one level each two years) as suggested in the draft
  • merit pay... what would be its role? We have already determined that performance of 15% or more below the target for the FTE-intensity be cause for review but not "docking" in that first year. So what would attract the merit award? We are already planning to recognize academic achievements (teaching, research and maybe admin) with promotion, so would the merit be to reward the activities that do not impact promotion (clinical?). Or ought we reconsider the whole premise of merit as being laid down on us from a hierarchical (top-down) management model we would rather "design-out"? It seems to me we want to work toward social responsiveness within and among working groups in a flat management system. This is important!
  • governance:
    • do we aim for governance by an even number of elected members, reserving a vote by the Division Head to break ties? What, if any, parts of governance would be out of scope for the general membership to overturn?
    • how are activities governed in the case where these are not fully "owned" (not purely delivered by) AFP participants?
  • due diligence:
    • what consultation is proposed with the BCMA to confirm our ongoing eligibility for the independent contractor categories of supports (insurance, educational benefits, RRSP contributions, other)?
    • Should we liaise with "CASC" groups like Anaesthesia and Neurosurgery to be sure how they have fared, and see if they would share their contract language (dollar information optionally removed).
Topic revision: 24 Jan 2015, JamesBusser
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Foswiki? Send feedback
Powered by Olark