[bpsdb] (For the Ofquack story so far see here.) Back in November 2008, the CNHC - the alternative medicine 'regulators' unaffectionately known to rational folk as 'Ofquack' - had their first quarterly meeting, and published the minutes of it on the internet as part of their continuing commitment to transparency. Then, for reasons no doubt entirely unconnected to the savaging they received, the link to the November minutes was removed from their website (although the actual file is still there). The minutes of the next meeting - on February 19th - failed to materialise, so with the third meeting due some time in May, I thought I'd e-mail them and ask what was happening.
Today I received the following response from one of their representatives:
"It had not been our practice to put the minutes on the web site up until now but that the Board agreed at its meeting in February that from May 2009 a report will be posted on the website after each of the Board meeting."
Wait... what?! If it hasn't been your practice to put minutes on line, then why exactly did you publish the November minutes online, and why on Earth do have you always had a section of your website entitled "board minutes" in which you state that: "In order to meet our commitment to transparency, CNHC will make the Minutes of its Board Meetings available here."
This e-mail describes an alternate version of reality. I can't of course say for certain that it's a deliberate lie, but it certainly falls into the category of a surprising untruth. The minutes were published, it has always been stated policy that minutes are published, and the CNHC have never given any explanation for why the November minutes were hidden from view, although I suspect it may be related to the unfortunate comments that were found lurking within.
Something will be published in May apparently, but whether "a report", means the same as "minutes" is hard to tell, and whether details of the November and February meetings will reappear is anyone's guess, although naturally I've asked.
So it'll be interesting to see what we get next month. Perhaps an update on their perilous financial status? Somehow I doubt it.
http://layscience.net/trackback/522
What can you say...
I'm not sure what there is to say, but you would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
Some of the other statements to have come from OfQuack are worthy of a chuckle or two as well - like the one about protecting data, or having had "an overwhelming response" to their register (they want at least 10,000 practitioners registered in the first year, but are some way off that target). The idea that the CNHC quality mark can be a symbol of quality service is perhaps beyond a joke.
Oh dear.
Transparency? My wife says to our cat when the cat gets in front of the television "you are a door, not a window."
I think it is generous to describe the statement you received as a 'surprising untruth'. In addition to the section you quote: "In order to meet our commitment to transparency, CNHC will make the Minutes of its Board Meetings available here", the section called "How we work":
http://www.cnhc.org.uk/pages/index.cfm?page_id=4
by copy and paste says:
"In this section you will find:
CNHC's core purposes
The structures for managing and overseeing CNHC's work
Minutes of recent Board meetings"
When I phoned CHNC in February to ask about the disappearance of the November Minutes, to my surprise I was put through (after being asked to hold on for a little while) to one of the senior Board Members. She told me that the November Minutes had been put up before they had been approved (this is a fair point, by the way) but that the February meeting was about to take place, and the approved Minutes would be posted after that. Shortly after the February meeting, I phoned again, and the person who answered the telephone confirmed that the November minutes would be posted 'very soon'.
So given that (1) in two separate areas of the website they state they will post the Minutes (2) they posted the unapproved November Minutes on their website (3) a Senior Board member confirmed in person that they would post the approved November Minutes
why would "It had not been our practice to put the minutes on the web site up until now" not be a lie? Only if the 'representative' who wrote to you had not been given access to the facts or the website.
"why would 'It had not been our practice to put the minutes on the web site up until now' not be a lie?"
Because I'm a coward who doesn't like getting letters from lawyers?
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
"When I phoned CHNC in February to ask about the disappearance of the
November Minutes, to my surprise I was put through (after being asked
to hold on for a little while) to one of the senior Board Members. She
told me that the November Minutes had been put up before they had been
approved (this is a fair point, by the way) but that the February
meeting was about to take place, and the approved Minutes would be
posted after that. Shortly after the February meeting, I phoned again,
and the person who answered the telephone confirmed that the November
minutes would be posted 'very soon'."
Very interesting. You get the impression that they really are making this up as they go along, as their "commitment to openness" becomes ever less palatable.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
This is turning from farce to self-parody.
However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, having only 200 SCAM practitioners registered does not rule out an overwhelming response. It could be that 4000 applicants applied, but the rigorous screening process employed rejected 95% of them due to insufficient evidence of safety or efficacy.
I have actually asked them to make their rejection statistics public - no response yet.
How about a Freedom of Information request to get hold of the minutes. I would assume that Ofquack are covered by the Act.
I was thinking about that myself, but the problem is that actually they've been set up as a private company. On the flip side, that does mean that we can get hold of their accounts. Unfortunately, accounts aren't due until April 2010 :|
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
However, I do see that on the whatdotheyknow.com the freedom of information request site that there have been requests to the DoH for this kind of information as the government body which set it up. The requests are recent, but it would be interesting to see what the response is.
Cheers
Recent response (24\4\09) to my request for minutes:
Dear Mr Shorrock,
The CNHC Board will with effect from their May meeting be making decisions from their meetings available on the CNHC website.
The committee meeting minutes will not be publicly available as the function of the committees is to advise and report to the Board.
We have been advised that the CNHC is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act; however we will within reasonable and appropriate limits always seek to give enquirers answers to questions that they raise about the work of the CNHC.
If you have a specific question or query please come back to me and if I am unable to assist you I will bring your email to the attention of one of the coChairs for their response.
Kind Regards
Lisa McCaul
Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council
83 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0HW
www.cnhc.org.uk
Many thanks for making this inquiry. I had a feeling you'd hit a brick wall, but it's always good to try. You've also confirmed what I suspected: they're not going to make the minutes available at all.
I love the line: "If you have a specific question or query please come back to me"
"Yes, I have a specific question, can I see the mother-chuffing minutes?!"
Or more seriously, perhaps you could ask them why they've changed their mind about the minutes, to contradict their commitment to openness and honesty?
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
One of the requests was mine; the DoH must answer by 20th May. As the DoH supports the CNHC then they will be obliged to demand the information from them. So it would be a good idea to make more requests to the DoH for information about all that the CHNC have done (or haven't), which will be news for the DoH.