http://www.elimina.com/newsletters
[size=6]JUST WHO ARE `THE PEOPLE?’
[/size]* Democratic organizations usually attempt to uphold the principle of “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” In most cases this principle makes sense, but things become complicated when it comes to self-regulating professions.
Under self-regulation, a profession (such as lawyers, accountants, doctors, nurses, engineers, architects) is delegated by government the power to regulate itself. The profession elects a governing body (Board or Council) to oversee the regulatory process and ensure that the public is protected from poor or unethical practice. To ensure public representation, government may appoint public members to the profession’s governing body.
The premise of self-regulation is that professionals are best qualified to establish their own regulatory framework. By way of comparison, in jurisdictions where self-regulation does not exist, government appoints a regulatory board, with the unilateral powers to collect licensing fees and regulate and discipline the members of the designated profession.
The governing body of a self-regulatory body sets licensing requirements, standards of practice, code of conduct, processes of inquiry and discipline, and regulatory bylaws and policies. Some jurisdictions place decision-making in the hands of the governing body, but others require that bylaws and/or regulations be voted on at an annual membership meeting.
The primary goal of regulation (whether by an appointed government agency or by a governing body elected by the profession itself) is to ***protect the public,*** by promoting good practice, preventing bad practice, and intervening when practice is unacceptable.
Self-regulation is a challenging concept. It means that members of a profession will impose administrative and financial hardships on themselves, in order to protect the public from incompetence or from unprofessional or unethical conduct. The greatest challenge of self regulation is to balance two potentially competing or conflicting interests: On one side is the public’s need for protection from bad practices. On the other side are the economic needs of professionals and their usual preference for full and unfettered autonomy.
Sadly, many members of self-regulating professions, and sometimes their own governing bodies, develop misguided expectations about the role of their organizations. The most typical expectation is: “*We, the members of the profession, pay dues, and we also elect our board, so this must mean that the board is accountable to us and must do as we say.”* In fact, the organization’s primary accountability is to the government that permits self-regulation.
If accountability to the profession were to apply at all, it would require professionals to be reliably and consistently capable of placing the public interest ahead of their own. In many instances this is not the case. Indeed, it is naïve to expect members of a profession, gathered at an annual meeting, to be genuinely devoid of self interest, and truly accept that the duty of a self-regulatory body is first and foremost to the public that it is mandated to protect.
Is it then logical to put regulatory decisions in front of the members at an annual meeting for a binding vote? Is it sensible to give them the right to vote on whether extra dues would be levied to address a complex regulatory climate, with increasing inquiries and lawsuits? One might wish that the answer to these questions would always be a resounding yes, but it often isn’t.
Interestingly, despite this reality, the legislation or bylaws of some regulatory bodies place regulatory decisions in the hands of the members at an annual meeting, when votes may be driven more by emotion and self interest than by pure consideration of the public interest.
In light of the above discussion, how should one define democracy in a self-regulatory body? Can it remain as “*Government of the people, by the people, for the people?” *Perhaps, but only if the `*the people’* will vary within the same sentence, i.e. self regulation is: **”G*overnance of the profession, by the profession, for the public**”**** (and not `for the profession’).*