Governance Reform: Electoral Districts - Request for Feedback 

We would like to hear from you 

The College is seeking feedback on proposed changes to the way that registrants are divided up geographically for the purpose of electing Registered Opticians to the Board of Directors.  

The board is made up of 8 Registered Opticians (ROs) who have been elected by their peers and 5 non-opticians who have been appointed to the board by the government.  The College currently has 8 geographic districts in place for the purpose of electing professional board members to the COO Board of Directors (Southern, Eastern, Northern, Western, Toronto, Ontario, Central Western and Central).  

The College is seeking your input on whether changes should be made to the current election districts, and if so, which model to adopt:  

1. Model 1 – A single all-province district. 

2. Model 2 – Broader geographic districts. 

3. Model 3 – Maintain the status quo (no changes made).  

Why is the College considering changes?  

Regulatory governance best practice supports the idea that board members should be elected based on their competence and skills as opposed to being based on geographical districts. 

Challenges have also been identified with the current model which include:  

• An inequality in the number of registrants assigned to each district.  For example, there is a significant difference between Central (York/Simcoe) with 829 registrants, and Northern with 111 registrants however each district has been assigned with 1 seat.   
   
• Low engagement.  In the past there has been a lack of interest in certain districts, in particular smaller districts with fewer opticians, which has led to uncontested elections and additional nomination periods. 
   
• The misperception that board members represent a constituency of registrants.  There is often a misunderstanding that board members represent those registrants that have elected them. Board members are in fact required to make all decisions in line with the COO’s mandate of protecting the public.   
   
• Lack of diversity.  Geographic districts ensure that there will be representation on the board from different parts of the province. Geographic representation, however, is only one aspect of diversity, and can actually hinder diversity by limiting the number of candidates who are eligible to run for each district.  

How could this issue be addressed?  

Other Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA) Colleges have made changes to their elections processes to address these challenges and to align with governance best practice.  

In 2024, the College of Dieticians (CDO) moved to a single Ontario-wide electoral district so that members would be elected solely on their competencies and attributes. The Ontario College of Pharmacists (OCP) also moved to a single district in 2020. 

Some RHPA Colleges have chosen to broaden their electoral districts to increase the number of registrants eligible to participate in each election and for an equal distribution of votes. In 2023, the College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario (COTO) reduced the number of their electoral districts from 6 to 3. In 2021, the College of Naturopaths also reduced the number of their districts from 8 to 7.  

Have the Board of Directors discussed this?  

The board discussed this topic at its meeting on June 3, 2024, and looked at two potential models for change:  

Model 1 – Single All-Province District 

All geographic districts would be eliminated and replaced by a single all-Ontario district for all professional board members. With this model the board would continue to have 8 elected board members however registrants could be elected from anywhere in the province (if they meet the other requirements of eligibility for election). This would be instead of 1 registrant being elected from each of the 8 districts. Registrants would be able to vote (if they meet the requirements of eligibility to vote) in all COO board elections instead of only in elections in their district. 

Model 2 – Broader Geographic Districts 

The number of geographic districts would be reduced from 8 to 4. The 4 districts would be North, East, West and Central.  

The board also discussed whether no changes should be made (Model 3 – Maintain Status Quo). Under this model, the COO would maintain its 8 geographical districts.  

What are the strengths and weaknesses of Model 1 and Model 2? 

In its discussion, the board identified the following strengths and weaknesses:  

Model 1 – Single District  

Strengths: 

• Would help to move away from the perception that board members represent those registrants that have elected them. This would help to benefit the College’s mandate of protecting the public.  
• Would allow for the largest pool of potential candidates and reduce the chance of there having to be uncontested elections and additional nomination periods.  
• A single district would require annual elections. This would give registrants more opportunities to run for a seat on the board and could increase voter engagement.  
• Having the largest pool of potential candidates would increase the chance that at least one of the candidates will meet the required competencies and attributes.  

Weaknesses:  

• A single district could not guarantee geographic diversity. The board discussed if it would be possible for there to be geographic representation at the committee level instead. This would be important as committees are directly involved in policy review and development.  
• Annual elections could cause election fatigue.  
• A single district could run the risk of the board becoming too urban-centric.  
• Rural registrants could be at a disadvantage in terms of voting as they could have a smaller network and know fewer registrants to vote for them.  

Model 2 – Broader Geographic Districts  

Strengths: 

• Larger geographic districts would help to maintain geographic diversity.  
• Broadening districts would increase the number of registrants eligible to participate in each election and so increase the chance that at least one of the candidates would meet the required competencies and attributes. 

Weaknesses:  

• Reallocating registrants in each district would be administratively difficult and the College does not have the capacity to keep reassigning districts according to changing registrant numbers over time.  
• This model would not address the issue of board members being seen as representatives of a particular constituency.  
• Boarder districts could still run the risk of the majority of registrants being elected from the urban centres of those districts.  
• Larger districts as opposed to a single district could result in a smaller pool of candidates which may run the risk that no candidates would meet the required competencies and attributes.  

Why is the College requesting feedback on this issue?  

The board agreed that it was important to seek feedback from registrants and other stakeholders before a decision on which model to adopt could be reached. 

How can I provide feedback? Complete the Survey.    

Share your feedback on the following questions when you complete the survey:  

1. Should the COO adopt Model 1 (A single all-province district)? 

2. Should the COO adopt Model 2 (Broader geographic districts)?  

3. Should the COO make no changes to the electoral districts (Model 3 - Maintain Status Quo)?  

The survey will be open until August 19, 2024. Thank you for taking the time to provide your valuable input.