• DRAFT for approval
  • CPB and Expert Panel membership approval procedures

    This page outlines processes for the CBP to manage nominations to both the CPB itself and the associated Expert Panel.

    The Terms of Reference describe the requirements in regards to nominations, candidacy and person specifications. This page describes the operating procedure to be followed to manage nominations.

    CPB Candidates

    This is the process for approving new members to the CPB itself. Note that CPB members have voting rights in regards to the membership of the CPB and any other issue pertaining to the CPB that requires a formal vote.

    Candidates should have provided the following information to the CPB Chairs in the first instance:

    “The candidate should supply a short CV and other qualifying information providing their:

    a)       statement of interest in working on the Clinical Program;

    b)      statement of commitment of time & availability;

    c)       statement of qualifications, according to Section 4;

    d)      statement of known conflicts of interest.”

    The CPB Co-chairs will initially assess the qualifying information to ensure there are no clear gaps, exclusions or conflicts of interest that would make the nomination unsuited for the role

    CPB chairs advise the CPB of the nomination

    CPB co-chairs will post, for each candidate, the following information to the CPB group on Discourse:

    “Clinical Program Board Candidate - for the review of the Board - NAME OF CANDITATE

    CPB members are invited to consider the new candidate below for approval as a member of the CPB”

    The name of the candidate and a copy of their nomination application will be shared to the CPB. If a CV has been provided this will not be shared, but will be reviewed by the CPB Chairs to assess suitable experience and skills for the CPB in the first instance. This is to protect the privacy of the candidates. [In future a supporting statement from the candidates is probably more appropriate than a full CV, but this will require a change to the Terms of Reference and agreement of the CPB].

    CPB chairs should state their initial position with regards to the candidate, that is if they recommend approval or rejection of the nomination.

    Current CPB members may:

    • Ask for more information

    • Request a discussion with the candidate (online)

    • Recommend CPB rejects the candidate on formal grounds because of some attribute that makes them unsuitable for CPB. A written justification for this opinion is required. It will be considered by the co-chairs and if agreed the candidate application will be rejected. If not agreed the candidate application may continue to a vote of the CPB membership.

    • Indicate their approval of the candidate by replying to the candidate nomination thread in Discourse (normally this e-mail)

    • If a super-majority of the CPB members (that is 2/3 rds rounded up of existing members) indicate that the candidate is accepted then the candidate will be approved for membership to the CPB.

    • After 28 days (or a shorter period, if described in the Candidate proposal and not objected to by any members) if there have not been sufficient approvals but the candidate has not been rejected then a formal vote will be taken.

    • Formal Vote Procedures:

      • The CPB chairs will notify the CPB membership via Discourse that the candidate requires a formal vote for approval or rejection for membership of the CPB by posting to the CPB group on discourse.

      • The vote will be managed by e-mail or at a CPB meeting.

      • By e-mail - e-mail will be sent from the CPB Admin account to all current CPB Members.

        • Members will be asked to state they ‘approve’ or ‘reject’ the candidate, or abstain from this vote. This will be done by replying to the voting notification.

        • Members will have 7 days to vote.

        • Abstentions and no response will in effect reduce the total membership of the CPB for this vote, reducing the effective super-majority.

        • At the end of the 7 days voting period if the candidate vote has a super-majority for ‘approve’ then the candidate will be added as a CPB member. If the super-majority is for ‘reject’ or there is no super-majority for ‘approve’, then the candidate will be rejected for membership of the CPB. In both cases the CPB Chairs will advise the candidate of the outcomes, with any qualifications or reasoning considered helpful also provided.

      • At a CPB meeting

        • The candidate’s nomination and application should already have been distributed to CPB members via Discourse as above.

        • The CPB should confirm they are in agreement with the processes so far and that sufficient time has been given to members to consider the nomination, if this time period is less than 28 days.

        • The opinion of the Expert Panel members should be asked for.

        • For the vote, guests and Expert Panel members should not be present.

        • The CPB members can vote on the candidate by a show of hands.

        • A super-majority of the CPB members present (less any abstentions) is required, assuming the CPB meeting is quorate.

    CPB Expert Panel Candidates

    This is the process for approving new members to the CPB Expert Panel. Note that CPB Expert Panel members do not have voting rights in regards to the membership of the CPB and any other issue pertaining to the CPB that requires a formal vote.

    Nominations

    Nominees are made by CPB Members. Nominations may be made by posting to Discourse CPB group or at CPB meetings by any CPB member.

    Candidature

    A nominee becomes a candidate on the basis of general consensus of the CPB. In normal working this will be via discussion either on Discourse or at a CPB meeting, and in the absence of any agreed objections the nominee will be accepted as a candidate. If required a vote will be taken. This will normally be at a CPB meeting. A simple majority of those present will be acceptable for the nominee to be considered a candidate.

    The candidate will be asked to provide information as outlined in the Terms of Reference.

    Procedures for assessing candidates

    The CPB co-chairs will review the candidate's submission in the first instance, rejecting only for formal reasons such as missing information or a clear conflict of interest.

    If agreed then the co-chairs will post, for each candidate, to Discourse CPB group:

    “Clinical Program Board Expert Panel Candidate - for the review of the Board - NAME OF CANDITATE

    CPB members are invited to consider the new candidate below for approval as a member of the CPB Expert Panel”

    The name of the candidate and a copy of their nomination application will be shared to the CPB. If a CV has been provided this will not be shared, but will be reviewed by the CPB Chairs to assess suitable experience and skills for the CPB in the first instance. This is to protect the privacy of the candidates. [In future a supporting statement from the candidates is probably more appropriate than a full CV, but this will require a change to the Terms of Reference and agreement of the CPB].

    • CPB chairs should state their initial position with regards to the candidate, that is if they recommend approval or rejection of the nomination.

    • CPB members may ask for more information about the candidate.

    • CPB members may advise of any formal or procedural issues that mean the candidate should be rejected for membership, for example a clear conflict of interest.

    • Indicate their approval of the candidate by replying to the candidate nomination thread in Discourse (normally this e-mail)

    • If a simple majority of the CPB members has approved the nomination then the candidate will be accepted.

    • If after 14 days there have not been sufficient approvals from the CPB membership then a formal voting procedure will be undertaken.

      • The CPB chairs will notify the CPB membership via Discourse that the candidate requires a formal vote for approval or rejection for membership of the CPB Expert Panel by posting to the CPB group on discourse.

      • Formal Vote Procedures:

        • The CPB chairs will notify the CPB membership via Discourse that the candidate requires a formal vote for approval or rejection for membership of the CPB Expert Panel by posting to the CPB group on discourse.

        • The vote will be managed by e-mail or at a CPB meeting.

        • By e-mail - e-mail will be sent from the CPB Admin account to all current CPB Members.

          • Members will be asked to state they ‘approve’ or ‘reject’ the candidate, or abstain from this vote. This will be done by replying to the voting notification.

          • Members will have 7 days to vote.

          • Abstentions and no response will in effect reduce the total membership of the CPB for this vote, reducing the effective majority.

          • At the end of the 7 days voting period if the candidate vote has a majority for ‘approve’ then the candidate will be added as a CPB Expert Panel member. If the majority is for ‘reject’ or there is no majority for ‘approve’, then the candidate will be rejected for membership of the CPB Expert Panel. In both cases the CPB Chairs will advise the candidate of the outcomes, with any qualifications or reasoning considered helpful also provided.

        • At a CPB meeting

          • The candidate’s nomination and application should already have been distributed to CPB members via Discourse as above.

          • The CPB should confirm they are in agreement with the processes so far and that sufficient time has been given to members to consider the nomination, if this time period is less than 14 days.

          • The opinion of the Expert Panel members should be asked for.

          • For the vote, guests and Expert Panel members should not be present.

          • The CPB members can vote on the candidate by a show of hands.

          • A majority of the CPB members present (less any abstentions) is required, assuming the CPB meeting is quorate. Members will be asked to state they ‘approve’ or ‘reject’ the candidate, or abstain from this vote.