【4】日本医学会会長門脇孝氏発言問題｜事務局責任者を名指しで非難

皆さま、こんにちは。
前回は、2024年6月28日に行われた日本専門医機構の社員総会で、日本医学会会長の門脇先生と、日本医師会長の松本先生が、「どうしてこの場でこんなことを言わないといけないの？」という内容を言及したことを記事にしました。（関連記事日本専門医機構2024/06/28社員総会にて日本医学会会長と日本医師会長が不穏な発言）
今回も、日本専門医機構2024/06/28社員総会における、門脇先生の発言について、法的な問題を検討してみたいと思います。

これらの問題については、シリーズで深堀していきたいと思いますので、どうぞよろしくお願いいたします。
関連記事：2024日本専門医機構社員総会での日本医学会会長門脇孝氏発言問題を検討【1】
2024日本専門医機構社員総会での日本医学会会長門脇孝氏発言問題を検討【2】
【3】日本医学会会長門脇孝氏発言問題｜日本アレルギー学会問題

日本専門医機構社員総会で行われた門脇孝日本医学会会長の問題発言をおさらい

全文については、
日本専門医機構2024/06/28社員総会にて日本医学会会長と日本医師会長が不穏な発言
をご覧ください。

門脇孝氏の発言の問題点をピックアップ

今回の記事では、以下の部分についての問題点を考えてみたいと思います。

当該責任者とは誰なのか？

というわけで、門脇氏の発言は、「個人が特定できる」ものであることは明白でしょう。

『理事長や理事会に相談なく、責任者が独断で職員の処遇を決定しており、職員が安心して働けない環境があるとの指摘も受けています。』の問題点

専門医機構の執行機関である理事会は、人事評価規定を作ったり、人事委員会を作ったりしていなくて、非常勤の理事しかいなくて、ずっと何も決めないまま、事務局長にほとんどなにもかも丸投げしてきました。
しかし、採用などに関しては、総務委員会や理事会における承認を経ています。

問題なのは、事務局のガバナンスではなく、理事会のガバナンスのほうです。
理事会が自らの職務を果たさないことが問題なのです。
そうした場合、法律上の観点から理事会が本来果たすべき責任と、それを怠っていることによるリスクについて説明します。

1. 理事会の職務放棄（会社法・社会福祉法に基づく）

理事会は、法人の最高意思決定機関として、組織の運営方針や職員の処遇に関する基本規定を定める役割を負っています。これを怠っている場合、法的には「職務懈怠（しょくむけたい）」として問題視される可能性があります。

会社法（または一般社団法人・財団法人法）に基づく義務
会社法または一般社団法人・財団法人法に基づき、理事会は以下のような職務義務を負います。

●　経営方針の策定と監督責任：理事会は、法人の経営方針や運営の基本計画を決定し、業務執行を監督する義務を負います。これには、職員の処遇や人事に関わる方針を定め、適切な体制を構築することも含まれます。

●　責任分担と権限委譲の明確化：理事会は、具体的な業務執行を他の機関（事務局長など）に委任することは可能ですが、その場合でも、「職員の処遇や人事制度に関する基本方針」を理事会自らが策定し、事務局長に対してその実施を指示する義務があります。これを怠ると、法人の管理義務を放棄したと見なされる可能性があります。

「丸投げ」は権限の濫用および職務怠慢 人事管理や処遇に関する事項を「丸投げ」し、理事会が全く関与しない場合、権限の濫用や職務放棄として、理事の善管注意義務違反（会社法第355条）および忠実義務違反となる可能性があります。

わたしは、細かいので、根拠条文を挙げておきます。
以下に、一般社団法人及び一般財団法人に関する法律（一般社団法人法）の該当条文を示します。

1. 理事会の職務および権限に関する条文
●一般社団法人及び一般財団法人に関する法律 第96条（理事会の権限）

「理事会は、次に掲げる職務を有する。」

業務執行の決定
理事の職務の執行の監督
代表理事及び業務執行理事の選定及び解職
この条文では、理事会の職務権限として、「業務執行の決定」と「理事の職務の執行の監督」が明記されています。したがって、理事会は法人の運営方針や経営計画を決定し、日々の業務執行を監督する義務を負っています。

●一般社団法人及び一般財団法人に関する法律 第91条（理事の注意義務）

「理事は、法人の業務を行うに当たっては、法人に対して善良な管理者の注意をもってその職務を行わなければならない。」

この条文により、理事は法人の利益を守るために適切な管理責任を果たし、職務を慎重に遂行する義務（善管注意義務）を負います。業務の管理を他者に丸投げしたり、監督を怠ることは、この義務に違反する行為とされる可能性があります。

●一般社団法人及び一般財団法人に関する法律 第95条（理事の忠実義務）

「理事は、その職務を行うに当たっては、法令及び定款を遵守し、法人の利益のために忠実にその職務を行わなければならない。」

この条文は、理事が法人の利益を守るために忠実に行動し、適切な運営を行う義務を定めています。例えば、事務局長に職員の処遇を丸投げすることは、この忠実義務を放棄していると見なされる可能性があります。

2. 権限委譲に関する条文
●一般社団法人及び一般財団法人に関する法律 第98条（理事会の決議による権限の委任）

「理事会は、理事会の決議によって、その権限に属する事項の一部を理事に委任することができる。」
ただし、次に掲げる事項はこの限りでない。

重要な財産の処分及び譲受け
多額の借財
重要な業務執行の決定
その他重要な決定
この条文に基づき、理事会はその権限を他の理事や執行機関に委任できますが、重要な業務執行や職員の処遇などの基本方針の決定は理事会自らが行うべきとされています。したがって、職員の処遇に関する方針を策定する責務は理事会にあり、これを他者に完全に任せることは認められません。
もしも仮に、「事務局長が勝手にやっていた」と主張するのだとしても、「事務局長の業務を管理監督する責任は理事会側にある」のであって、事務局長が何度も報告を求めたり是正するような命令をしてもいうことを聞かなかったというような特別な事情がない限り、単なる理事会の落ち度です。

3. 善管注意義務と忠実義務に関する条文
●一般社団法人及び一般財団法人に関する法律 第112条（理事の責任）
「理事がその職務を行うにつき故意又は過失によって、法人に損害を与えたときは、当該理事はその損害を賠償する責任を負う。」
この条文は、理事が適切な管理を行わずに法人に損害を与えた場合、損害賠償責任を負う可能性を示しています。事務局長に権限を丸投げした結果、職員の処遇に問題が生じた場合には、理事自身が責任を問われることになります。

4. 経営方針の策定と監督責任に関する条文
●一般社団法人及び一般財団法人に関する法律 第98条の2（業務執行理事の設置及び権限）

「理事会の決議により、理事の中から業務執行理事を選定し、その業務執行を指示することができる。」
「業務執行理事は、理事会の基本方針に基づいて、日常的な業務を遂行するものとする。」

この条文では、日常的な業務執行を特定の理事（または事務局長など）に委任することは可能ですが、その前提として理事会が「基本方針」を策定し、業務執行理事に指示を与える必要があることを定めています。

上記の一般社団法人法の条文をもとに、理事会は法人の経営方針を策定し、業務執行を監督する責任を負っていることが確認できます。事務局長などに業務執行を委任することは認められますが、職員の処遇や人事制度に関する基本方針の策定は理事会の専権事項であり、それを怠ることは法的義務違反に該当する可能性があることが示されています。

2. 内部統制の欠如とガバナンス問題
理事会が人事に関する適切な規定を定めず、業務や責任を事務局長に丸投げすることは、一般社団法人法第91条（注意義務）および第95条（忠実義務）、第96条（理事会の権限）および第98条（監督責任）の規定に照らし、職務怠慢やガバナンス不備とみなされる可能性があります。この場合、外部監査や法的調査の対象となり、場合によっては理事個々の法的責任や解任請求に発展するリスクがあります。

3. 法的リスク：理事の責任追及
理事会がこうした規定の作成や職務管理を懈怠し、問題が発生した場合には、理事個々の責任が問われる可能性があります。

4. 対応策
このような問題を解決するためには、次のような対応が必要です。

●理事会のガバナンス体制を強化
理事会自らが職員の処遇に関する基本方針や規定を策定し、その運用を事務局長に委任することを明確にする。
●人事委員会や倫理委員会の設置
職員の処遇や倫理に関する問題を扱う「人事委員会」や「倫理委員会」を設置し、事務局長ではなく、理事会や独立した監督機関が処遇の妥当性を評価する仕組みを導入する。
●監査体制の整備
内部監査部門や外部監査を通じて、理事会の職務遂行状況や事務局長の職務執行状況を定期的にレビューし、是正措置を取る体制を確立する。

これにより、理事会が適切に職務を遂行し、ガバナンス体制を強化することが可能となります。

門脇氏の発言のほかの問題点については

順次書いていこうと思います。
この問題は、日本の医学のアカデミアの最高峰であるはずの、日本医学会連合会長が関係しているので、前回同様、英語をつけておきます。
もうね。世界中の人に見てもらったほうがいいんですよ。
どうせ日本人なんてガイアツでしか変われないのですから。
内容に問題がある、英文が間違っている、情報提供などありましたら、ぜひ、コメント欄からお知らせください！

【4】The issue of the comments made by the President of the Japan Medical Association, Takashi Kadowaki|The person in charge of the secretariat was criticised by name
2024.10.6

The issue related to the 2024 Japan Medical Specialty Board General Meeting

Table of contents[∧]
1 Review of the problematic comments made by the President of the Japan Medical Association, Takashi Kadowaki, at the Japan Medical Specialty Board General Meeting
2 Picking out the problematic points in the comments made by Takashi Kadowaki
3 For other issues with Mr. Kadowaki’s comments,
Hello everyone.
In the previous article, we wrote about the comments made by Dr. Kadowaki, President of the Japan Medical Association, and Dr. Matsumoto, President of the Japan Medical Association, at the Japan Medical Specialty Board General Meeting on 28th June 2024. (Related article: Japan Medical Specialty Board 2024/06/28 General Meeting: Unrestful remarks by the President of the Japan Medical Association and the President of the Japan Medical Association)
This time, we would like to consider the legal issues surrounding the comments made by Dr. Kadowaki at the Japan Medical Specialty Board 2024/06/28 General Meeting.
We would like to delve deeper into these issues in a series of articles, so please look forward to them.
Related articles: Examining the issues surrounding the comments made by Dr. Takashi Kadowaki, President of the Japan Medical Association, at the 2024 Japan Medical Specialty Board General Meeting [1]
Examining the issues surrounding the comments made by Dr. Takashi Kadowaki, President of the Japan Medical Association, at the 2024 Japan Medical Specialty Board General Meeting [2]
[3] Issues surrounding the comments made by Dr. Takashi Kadowaki, President of the Japan Medical Association|Issues surrounding the Japan Allergy Society
A review of the problematic comments made by Takashi Kadowaki, President of the Japan Medical Association, at the Japan Medical Specialty Board General Meeting
For the full text, please see
Japan Medical Specialty Board 2024/06/28 General Meeting: Unresting comments by the President of the Japan Medical Association and the President of the Japan Medical Association
.
The problematic points in Takashi Kadowaki’s comments
In this article, we would like to consider the problematic points in the following sections
There are also problems with the governance within the secretariat, and it has been pointed out that the responsible person is making decisions about staff treatment on their own without consulting the board of directors or the president, and that there is an environment where staff cannot work with peace of mind.
Who is this responsible person?
In October 2021, the first new specialist doctors certified under the new system will be born. We spoke to Mr. Masato Horibe, who serves as the Secretary General of the Japan Medical Specialty Board, a third-party organisation responsible for managing the specialist medical system, about the background to the establishment of the organisation and its role.
Source: Three years after the start of the new specialist medical system
– Japan’s medical care is changing with a new system
2nd Edition
So, it is clear that Mr. Kadowaki’s comments are ‘identifiable’.
The problem with the statement ‘The responsible person is making decisions about staff treatment on their own, without consulting the board of directors or the board of trustees, and there are also indications that the staff are unable to work in a secure environment.’
The board of directors, which is the executive body of the Japan Medical Specialty Board, has not created any personnel evaluation regulations or a personnel committee, and with only part-time directors, it has been leaving almost everything to the executive director without making any decisions at all.
However, matters such as recruitment have been approved by the General Affairs Committee and the Board of Directors.
The problem is not the governance of the secretariat, but the governance of the Board of Directors.
The problem is that the Board of Directors is not fulfilling its duties.
In such cases, I will explain the responsibilities that the Board of Directors should be fulfilling from a legal perspective, and the risks involved in failing to do so.
1. Abandonment of duties by the Board of Directors (based on the Companies Act and the Social Welfare Act)
As the highest decision-making body of a corporation, the board of directors is responsible for setting the basic rules for the organisation’s management policies and staff treatment. If this is neglected, it could be considered a legal issue of ‘neglect of duty’.
Obligations under the Companies Act (or the General Incorporated Associations/Foundations Act)
Under the Companies Act or the General Incorporated Associations/Foundations Act, the board of directors has the following duties
● Responsibility for formulating and supervising management policies: The board of directors is responsible for deciding the management policies and basic plans for the operation of the corporation, and for supervising the execution of business. This includes formulating policies related to the treatment of staff and personnel matters, and establishing appropriate systems.
● Clarification of responsibility sharing and delegation of authority: The board of directors can delegate specific operational execution to other bodies (such as the executive director), but even in this case, the board of directors itself is responsible for formulating the ‘basic policy on employee treatment and personnel systems’ and instructing the executive director to implement it. If this is neglected, it is possible that the board of directors will be seen as having abandoned its management duties.
‘Passing the buck’ is an abuse of authority and dereliction of duty If the board of directors completely ignores matters related to personnel management and treatment, it may be considered an abuse of authority or dereliction of duty, and the directors may be in breach of their duty of care (Article 355 of the Companies Act) and their duty of loyalty.
As it is a detailed point, I will list the relevant articles.
The following are the relevant articles from the Act on General Incorporated Associations and General Incorporated Foundations (General Incorporated Associations Act).
Article on the duties and authority of the board of directors
Article 96 (Authority of the Board of Directors) of the Act on General Incorporated Associations and General Incorporated Foundations
‘The board of directors shall have the following duties.’
Decisions on business execution
Supervision of the execution of duties by directors
Selection and dismissal of representative directors and directors in charge of business execution
This article clearly states that the duties and authority of the board of directors include ‘decisions on business execution’ and ‘supervision of the execution of duties by directors’. Therefore, the board of directors is responsible for deciding on the management policy and business plan of the corporation, and for supervising the execution of day-to-day business.
●Article 91 of the Act on General Incorporated Associations and General Incorporated Foundations (Duty of Care of Directors)
‘Directors must perform their duties with the care of a good manager when conducting the business of the corporation.’
According to this article, directors have a duty to fulfil their management responsibilities appropriately and to carry out their duties with care (duty of care) in order to protect the interests of the corporation. It is possible that simply leaving the management of business to someone else or neglecting supervision could be considered a violation of this duty.
Article 95 (Duty of Loyalty of Directors)
‘Directors must comply with laws and the articles of incorporation when performing their duties, and must perform their duties faithfully for the benefit of the corporation.’
This article stipulates the obligation for directors to act faithfully to protect the interests of the corporation and to carry out appropriate management. For example, if you leave the treatment of staff entirely up to the secretary-general, this could be seen as a breach of this duty of loyalty.
2. Articles on the delegation of authority
●Act on General Incorporated Associations and General Incorporated Foundations, Article 98 (Delegation of authority by resolution of the board of directors)
‘The board of directors may, by resolution of the board of directors, delegate to a director some of the matters that fall within the authority of the board of directors.”
However, the following matters are not subject to this.
Disposal and acceptance of important property
Large amounts of borrowing
decisions on important business operations
and other important decisions
Based on this article, the board of directors can delegate its authority to other directors or executive bodies, but it is considered that the board of directors itself should make decisions on basic policies such as important business operations and staff treatment. Therefore, the board of directors is responsible for formulating policies on staff treatment, and it is not acceptable to completely entrust this to others.
Even if the secretary general claims that he or she was acting on his or her own, ‘the board of directors is responsible for managing and supervising the secretary general’s work’, and unless there are special circumstances, such as the secretary general repeatedly requesting reports or orders to make corrections but not listening to them, it is simply a fault of the board of directors.
3. Articles on the duty of care and the duty of loyalty
●Article 112 (Director Liability) of the Act on General Incorporated Associations and General Incorporated Foundations
‘If a director causes damage to the corporation through intent or negligence in the performance of his or her duties, the director shall be liable for compensation for the damage.’
This article indicates that if a director causes damage to the corporation through a lack of appropriate management, he or she may be liable for compensation for the damage. If problems arise in the treatment of staff as a result of the complete delegation of authority to the executive director, the directors themselves will be held responsible.
4. Articles concerning the formulation and supervisory responsibility of management policies
●Act on General Incorporated Associations and General Incorporated Foundations, Article 98-2 (Establishment and authority of executive directors)
‘The board of directors may select executive directors from among the directors and give them instructions on the execution of business.’
‘Executive directors shall carry out day-to-day operations based on the basic policies of the board of directors.’
This article states that it is possible to delegate day-to-day operations to a specific director (or the secretary general, etc.), but that the board of directors must first formulate ‘basic policies’ and give instructions to the executive director.
Based on the above article of the General Incorporated Association Act, it can be confirmed that the board of directors is responsible for formulating the management policy of the corporation and supervising the execution of business. It is acceptable to delegate the execution of business to the executive director, etc., but it is indicated that formulating the basic policy regarding the treatment of staff and the personnel system is the exclusive authority of the board of directors, and that neglecting to do so may constitute a violation of legal obligations.
Huh? That’s strange, isn’t it?
According to Mr. Kadowaki’s comments, he says that the person in charge is making decisions on treatment on his own, but normally there are regulations, and personnel evaluations are carried out in accordance with these. It is the duty of the board of directors to instruct that these regulations be followed, so if we were to call this the secretary-general’s reckless behaviour, wouldn’t that just be the board of directors’ own negligence in their supervisory role?
Why are they making the secretary-general the only one to blame?
On the contrary, it would be strange if the board of directors didn’t do anything and then just praised the secretary-general for his hard work, saying ‘Thank you!
Or did they not understand at all what their responsibilities were, and think that the secretary-general’s job was to make personnel regulations for the staff?
And then, without understanding anything, he made a comment like that at the General Meeting of the Japan Medical Specialist Organization?
Dr. Kadowaki is surprisingly reckless!
He’s the director of the Tokyo University Hospital and the Toranomon Hospital, but I’m impressed that he can get away with not understanding the authority and responsibilities of the executive board at all.
The world is coming to an end with someone like this as the president of the Japan Medical Association. (Note: This is a personal opinion.)
2. Lack of internal control and governance issues
If the board of directors does not establish appropriate regulations regarding personnel matters and simply delegates all duties and responsibilities to the executive director, this may be considered to be dereliction of duty or poor governance in light of the provisions of Article 91 (duty of care), Article 95 (duty of loyalty), Article 96 (authority of the board of directors) and Article 98 (supervisory responsibility) of the General Incorporated Association Act. In this case, there is a risk that the organisation will be subject to external audits and legal investigations, and that individual board members may be held legally liable or face calls for dismissal.
3. Legal risk: Pursuing board members’ responsibilities
If the board fails to create such regulations or manage its duties, and problems arise, individual board members may be held liable.
4. Countermeasures
The following measures are needed to resolve such problems.
●Strengthening the board’s governance system
The board of directors themselves should formulate basic policies and regulations regarding staff treatment, and clarify that the operation of these policies and regulations is delegated to the executive director.
●Establishment of a personnel committee and ethics committee
Establish a ‘personnel committee’ and ‘ethics committee’ to deal with issues related to staff treatment and ethics, and introduce a system in which the appropriateness of treatment is evaluated by the board of directors or an independent supervisory body, rather than the executive director.
●Establishment of an audit system
A system will be established to regularly review the performance of the Board of Directors and the Executive Director through internal and external audits, and to take corrective action.
This will enable the Board of Directors to perform its duties appropriately and strengthen the governance system.
Overall, can you understand why Dr. Kadowaki is suddenly blaming the secretariat?
I have no idea. The director-in-chief is responsible for supervising whatever the secretary-general does.
Come to think of it, Dr. Kadowaki said that the directors are working hard, but the secretariat is the problem, right?
To become the president of the Japan Medical Association, there is an election.
What does it mean to complain about people who have no authority at all, without complaining about the people whose votes you have?
What a great personality. (Note: This is a personal opinion.)
I will write about the other problems with Mr. Kadowaki’s comments
in turn.
As this issue involves the president of The Japanese Medical Science Federation, which is supposed to be the highest peak of Japanese medical academia, I will add English to the article as I did last time.
You know, it would be better if people all over the world could see this.
After all, Japanese people can only change if they are exposed to foreign cultures.
If you have any problems with the content, or if you find any mistakes in the English, or if you have any information to provide, please let us know in the comments section!