Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 263 No 7058 p231-234
August 14, 1999 The Society

August council meeting

Performance review of individual Council members to be published annually

The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has agreed that information about its members’ individual performance should be published annually, with a summary at the end of each member’s three-year term of office on Council. A working group is to be set up to recommend the format in which the information will be produced.
The Council made its decision after debating a motion by Mr Allen, who proposed: “That in the interest of corporate and financial governance a performance review of individual members of Council be published in the following format: committee positions held; outside body representation; committee and Council attendance; branch and regional meetings addressed or attended (including own branch); individual member’s expenses, broken down into ranges, eg, 0-20k, 21-50k, 51-100k, 101k-plus (excluding President/Vice-President allowances); (b) that the above information be published annually and a summation be published at the end of the individual member’s three year term of office on Council.”
Mr ALLEN said that the Society’s membership wanted to know what happened in the building, and especially in the Council chamber. The motion was designed to be another step forward towards greater transparency. On corporate governance, he said that, while some information was already published, nobody outside the headquarters building knew much about Council representation on outside bodies, and there was an interest from the membership with regard to branch and regional meetings addressed or attended. On financial governance, Mr Allen said that the Council had a duty to let members know what they were drawing from the Society’s funds. The approach was not a novel one. Health authorities already gave that information.
Mr KOZIOL seconded the motion. He felt that the President’s and Vice-President’s allowances should be included.
Mr SMITH supported the motion in principle. But he believed the membership should be asked what details they wanted rather than assume that the information was required.
Mr NATHAN said that he could not see the value of publishing individual Council members’ expenses. All they demonstrated was that some Council members lived further from London and therefore incurred more expenses than others.
Mr ARGOMANDKHAH supported the motion in principle. He felt that the way forward would be to form a focus group to develop something acceptable.
The TREASURER agreed in principle with the motion. But he was not certain that publishing an individual’s expenses conveyed anything useful to the membership. Under the present system, there was an internal audit individually and that was reported collectively. He assured the Council that he would monitor that internal audit on a regular basis.
The Treasurer supported Mr Smith’s idea that the membership should be asked what they would like to know and then given that information.
Mrs STONE had no problem with anybody knowing which committees she attended, what outside bodies she was on and when she attended Council meetings. But she did have a problem with anybody knowing how much she was reimbursed for expenses because the figure would be meaningless without knowledge of train fares, distance travelled and how often attendance in London was required.
Something useful could be achieved by letting the matter go to a group such as Mr Argomandkhah had suggested. That would allow Mr Smith’s suggestion to be tested. The matter had to be thought through. Otherwise, the annual report might contain a great deal of meaningless information that would detract from the rest of the report. Information should be passed on in a transparent way which could be understood and which would not be misused.
Mr PATEL said that it was important for the Council to have an agreed definition of corporate governance. There were also implications so far as the Cadbury and Greenbury proposals were concerned. Those should be taken into account. The National Health Service had a code of conduct and accountability that might be worth considering.
Mr Patel supported Mr Argomandkhah’s suggestion. Such a group should look beyond corporate governance, which had no meaning on its own. The issue was a wide one, and matters had to be thought through in detail.
Dr EVANS said that a past Treasurer had told him that individual Council members’ expenses correlated closely with their travelling distance from London. If the membership was concerned about expenses, that might eventually result in Council members being drawn only from people living around the M25.
Mrs HOARE endorsed the idea of transparency and the concept of corporate governance. But the reference to “performance review” posed a difficulty. The motion proposed recording only attendance, but some Council members might contribute significantly in other ways.
Mr BURR felt that Council expenses were only an issue because of the system of what were expenses and what were allowances.
Dr DAWSON said that matter was one of establishing processes to ensure that probity was being observed both in corporate governance and financial governance. Forming a working party was a sensible way forward if the matter was dealt with urgently.
Mr CURPHEY supported the intent behind the motion. His rough assessment was that someone who lived in the London area and drove to London for a day’s meeting would probably put in a total expense claim for about £110, while he, travelling from the Isle of Man, claimed £480 (he was assuming that he had a locum expense and that the other person did not). That sort of spectrum illustrated the point that there was great difficulty in publishing raw data to the membership.
Mr Curphey urged the Council to take Mrs Hoare’s point into consideration. Attendance at meetings and participation in committees was no indication of the true value of a Council member. The membership had to have a measure by which they could assess whether or not anybody had done a good job.
The VICE-PRESIDENT also supported the sentiment behind the motion. Other Council members had already voiced his difficulty relating to how to interpret the information in a meaningful way so that there would be comparison on a similar basis related to the information provided.
On the publication of financial information, the Vice-President said that perhaps publishing details only of payments other than the reimbursement of expenses would overcome the difficulties that had been highlighted for those who lived beyond the M25.
Responding to the debate, Mr ALLEN agreed that the first part of his motion should be amended to read: “That in the interest of corporate and financial governance appropriate information about individual members of Council be published and that a working group be set up to recommend the format in which this is done.” He accepted the amendment in the expectation that “appropriate information” would include the sort of things outlined in the original draft.
Mr PATEL wondered what was the point of having corporate governance if there were no codes or sanctions. There should be a code of conduct and a code of accountability. Then if people misused the system there would be sanctions.
Dr EVANS said that, so that there should be no doubt about the matter, it should be made clear that the Council’s discussions and Mr Patel’s remarks did not suggest that there was any hint of wrongdoing at the present time.
Mr PATEL agreed and thanked Dr Evans for his remarks.
Mr ALLEN asked for a timetable to be set within the new ways of working. He suggested that the group should report by the end of the year.
The Council then agreed the motion and the proposed timetable.

In a paper supporting his motion, Mr NATHAN said that, while the Council now recognised the need to conduct its business as openly as possible, the meetings of the Officers were held not just in private but in total secrecy. No agendas or minutes were made available to the Council.
The confidentiality and delicacy of some of the matters dealt with at the Officers’ meetings were no excuse for not issuing minutes. Other groups within the Society dealt with highly confidential commercial matters, but agendas and minutes were issued to the Council in confidence, and items might be reported to the Society’s membership. The same principle should apply to reports of the Officers’ meetings except, perhaps, for matters relating to personal or disciplinary matters involving members of staff.
Mr NATHAN added that his motion was not specifically directed towards the current Officers. He recalled four past attempts to put his motion into effect. Assurances had been given, but nothing had resulted. He wanted to see the Council resolve that the Officers should produce the necessary information.
The TREASURER seconded the motion. He had also raised the point in the past but nothing had resulted. That did not reflect on the current Officers. In the interests of all, meetings of Officers should be as transparent as possible. It was important that the Council knew exactly what was going on. There would be the odd occasion when the Officers were not in a position to disclose something to the Council but the vast majority of discussion items could be disclosed.
Mr CURPHEY supported the motion but said he did so for the “wrong” reason — because it was the only way to exorcise a lack of trust in the Officers. He had asked in the past that Council members should attend the meetings of Officers as observers. On the basis of two observers at each Officers’ meeting they would get right round the Council in the course of a year. At the end of a year the whole Council would believe that the process was transparent and nothing Machiavellian went on in Officers’ meetings. That would perhaps help to build some of the trust that they needed.
Mr Curphey urged the Officers to consider inviting observers to their meetings. Each Council member would, for the purposes of the meeting, be regarded as an Officer, with all that that entailed in terms of confidentiality. Should something delicate or controversial need to be discussed, Council members should be trusted on that occasion to be able to deal with that matter just the same as an Officer.
The Council then agreed Mr Nathan’s motion.

Appointment of chief pharmacist

The Secretary and Registrar reported to the Council that a letter had been received from the Minister for Health (Mr John Denham) assuring the Society that the Department of Health was committed to appointing a chief pharmaceutical officer to succeed Mr Bryan Hartley, who retired earlier in the year. Senior officials at the Department were looking into whether changes needed to be made to the post before further steps were taken to fill it. A further announcement would be made as soon as possible.

Support for CPA

Mr PATEL reported that many members of Council and of the Society’s Scottish and Welsh executives had supported the recent fund-raising dinner for the Commonwealth Pharmaceutical Association, hosted by the Commonwealth Pharmacy Support Group (PJ, July 17, p93). He thanked them, and also The Pharmaceutical Journal, for their support and involvement in the initiative. It was good to see people from different sectors of pharmacy coming together to celebrate the achievements of the CPA. He hoped that would continue in the future. He paid tribute to the chief guest, Mr Paul Boateng (Minister of State, Home Office).
The PRESIDENT said the evening had been a tremendous achievement and commended Mr Patel for it.
Mr ALLEN referred to further support for the CPA from the Avicenna Pharmacists Associates, whose recent annual dinner he had addressed (PJ, July 17, p96). He had been presented with a cheque for £500 for the Commonwealth Pharmaceutical Association and a further cheque for £1,000 for the Society’s Benevolent Fund.

Code of Ethics review

The Council approved a draft of a revised Code of Ethics, which represented the culmination of the work of its ethics working party. It was agreed that the document, entitled “Pharmacists’ ethics and professional performance”, would be launched at the British Pharmaceutical Conference in September for consultation with the membership. The consultation period would extend until the end of the year. Early in 2000, the working party and the Law and Ethics Committee would consider the comments received with a view to preparing a final document for adoption by the membership at the annual general meeting in May, 2000.

Aristolochia ban proposal

The Council agreed that the Society should support the Medicines Control Agency proposal for a permanent ban on the import, sale or supply of unlicensed products containing any plant of the genus Aristolochia (PJ, August 7, p189).
The Society would also support an additional proposal to ban seven further substances for which there was a risk of confusion or contamination with aristolochia. The Society’s chief scientist (Professor Tony Moffat) had advised the Council that, without the use of liquid chromatography combined with mass spectrometry, it was extremely difficult to be confident of the absence of aristolochia. On an alternative proposal that the additional ban would not apply where the person placing a product on the market had exercised due diligence, the chief scientist had advised that it was doubtful that importers and herbalists would be able to satisfy any “due diligence” criteria. Since there were many alternative herbal products available, the “banning” of those substances would not remove the ability to use herbal treatment.

Public relations

It was reported to the Council that an evaluation of press coverage featuring the Society during July had found that, of 52 press stories, 65 per cent had been positive, 30 per cent neutral and 5 per cent negative. The positive publicity was mainly a result of two events: the “Head for your pharmacy” campaign, a joint initiative of the Society and the Doctor Patient Partnership, which had attracted positive interest from national and regional broadcast and print media (PJ, July 17, p81); and the Society’s discussion document on emergency contraception, which had been the subject of a front-page story in the Daily Express on July 26, backed by a leading article calling on the Government to move quickly on allowing pharmacists to supply emergency hormonal contraception (PJ, July 31, p148).

Birdsgrove House

The director of resources (Mr Denis Argent) reported to the Council that the treatment centre at Birdsgrove House was showing a gradual increase in numbers, and bed occupancy was well above expectations for the first year.
Despite fears in some quarters that the treatment programme might adversely affect bookings for convalescence, the convalescent programme was now running at its busiest ever, and bed occupancy had reached an all-time high in July. For the first time ever, it was proposed to offer special packages to members who wished to stay over the Christmas and New Year periods. Initial bookings had already been confirmed.

Parliamentary pharmacy group

The director of public affairs (Ms Beverley Parkin) reported that the steering group for the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group had held its first meeting, attended by Mr Koziol and herself, to discuss the established of the group committee and its forward programme.
The group’s statement of purpose (which was a requirement under the rules of the House of Commons) was “to raise awareness of pharmacy and pharmacists and to promote pharmacy’s current and potential contribution to the health of the nation”.
Dr Howard Stoate, MP (Labour, Dartford), who was a general medical practitioner and a member of the health select committee, had agreed to co-chair the group. The other officers (two further co-chairmen, one from each major opposition party, and a treasurer) would be sought over the summer and early autumn. A programme of visits to different types of pharmacy and meetings with pharmacists would be arranged so that the committee members could get to know pharmacy and its issues. It was hoped that a lunch could be organised for founder members of the group, pharmacy leaders and others in health care who supported pharmacy.

Electronic JPP and PPC

The publications director reported to the Council that electronic versions of the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology and Pharmacy and Pharmacology Communications had now been launched. The full content of each was available free to all who subscribed to the paper versions. Those who did not subscribe would be able to view the abstracts only and to buy copies of individual articles.