I am writing in respect to the recent process of the BCMA vote on the term limits bylaw amendment. I am but one member of the BCMA. I don’t really know how it runs, but do choose to vote after reviewing the information in our voting packages.

The voting package I received from the BCMA on the amendment included the Board’s recommendation to reject the proposal, a list of reasons why the proposal should be rejected, and a copy of the proposed amendment. There was no information on the merits of the proposal. I do not feel strongly about this particular referendum. I do feel strongly about the pro­cess utilized. 

I was shocked to receive a one-sided information package. I even show­ed it to my family; I couldn’t believe I had received such a biased document and wanted a second opinion as to whether I was reading it correctly. Unfortunately, I interpreted the biased document to mean that the other viewpoint had little merit. In general, I tend to support the opinions of people who I feel are elected to represent us and know much more about the issues than I do. I am offended as I feel that my good intentions have been taken advantage of. I am also embarrassed for casting a vote after recognizing I had received a biased package. 

After I mailed in my ballot, I re­ceived an e-mail supporting the alternate viewpoint. It was too late to change my vote, although I tried. I think this process was flawed and the results will not reflect the views of our membership. 

My sentiments should be considered by the BCMA group who put together the voting packages. I hope that votes to the members will be handled differently in the future.
—Jennifer Lajoie, MD
Nanaimo