Policy Committee Meeting 12.4.23

• Once the authors have completed an initial draft of an OMA Position Statement, the draft will then be circulated to the OMA BOT members via email for their review, comments, and suggested edits. • The OMA BOT review process will be no less than two weeks. • Once comments have been submitted, the final version of the statement will be sent to the board for review. • If no OMA BOT member objects to the OMA Position Statement during the email correspondence, then the Position Statement can move forward toward publication without requiring a formal OMA BOT meeting. • If any OMA BOT member objects to the OMA Position Statement during the email correspondence, an OMA BOT meeting will be convened to discuss the Position Statement, which aligns with Section 7, Article 128-202 of the Colorado Statutes, “Directors and Officers Part 2-Meetings and Action of the Board; Action Without Meeting” https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title 7/corporations-continued/article-128/part-2/section-7-128-202 as the OMA is a Colorado-based non-profit corporation. • If, during this meeting, the Position Statement is approved by a majority vote, it will then proceed toward publication. If the OMA Position Statement does not receive a majority vote during the BOT meeting where the Position Statement is discussed, it will not move forward toward publication. In such case, the Position Statement may be subject to further revisions and potential re-evaluation by the OMA BOT at a later time. • The final edits of the publishing proofs of the Position Statement(s) are the responsibility of the authors of the Position Statement(s). • In the event a Position Statement is not able to be published in the journal, it will then be placed on the website instead. • Once an OMA Position Statement is published on the OMA website or in the journal it should be reviewed according to the OMA sunsetting policy. 7. Legal Review: In some cases, the OMA authors may request a review by the OMA’s legal counsel to help ensure that the OMA Position Statement complies with relevant laws and regulations, including patient confidentiality and medical liability considerations. 8. Other Considerations: Incorporated with the OMA BOT ‘s new trustee orientation process, the Editor-in Chief of Obesity Pillars will share the training used for Associate Editors for Obesity Pillars to be used as guidance on the process for an effective review of Position Statements. Included in this orientation training is ensuring clarity that OMA BOT members should not be discouraged from requesting an OMA Position Statement meeting if author revisions to the OMA BOT member are not sufficient to alleviate the concerns of any OMA BOT member who may voice concerns. That said, if an OMA BOT meeting is held to discuss the Position Statement, then the Position Statement can move forward with a majority vote of the OMA BOT who were present for this discussion.

Commented [EL1]: Commented [EL2R1]: I suggest adding a bullet before “objects” – once comments have been submitted, the final version of the statement should be sent to the board for review. – this is implied, but not stated. So now we are reviewing the edited document.

Commented [EL3]: Any BOT may request to convene a meeting to further discuss and/or vote on the Position statement (Section 7, Article 128-202 of the Coloardo Statutes…). In the absence of such a request, the statement can move forward toward publication.

Commented [EL4]: Yes – this is very well written.

Commented [EL5]: This seems out of place – implies the authors can change the position statement that has already been voted on by the board. I think this sentence should be removed. Authors should not be able to modify once the BOT has approved. If substantive changes were needed, this should require another vote by the BOT.

2