From Mr D. R. Kent, MRPharmS
SIR,—As expected I have received my annual retention fee notice with the inevitable increase, albeit, this year, a modest amount. Why the Council of this cash rich Society found it necessary to impose any increase in fee this year, when we are far from short of funds, is beyond me. Perhaps it is to recoup in part the proposed spending of £2.5m to £3m on the redevelopment of the Lambeth building. This was announced to those few members present at the last annual general meeting. No general announcement of this proposal has been made to the Society's membership at large and as far as I am aware no report of any discussion at the Council meetings has been made.
I pose three questions. First, is this proposed expenditure still being considered by the Council? Secondly, if so, on what basis is it justified? As a regular visitor to Lambeth I have not noticed the building bursting at the seams. Thirdly, in this new supposed era of transparency, why has the membership of the Society not been kept well informed by announcements in the PJ of these plans?
I have also received with my retention fee form an application for a Society membership card. I am asked to pay £10, a cost which might be justified for the production and administration of a small number of cards but is wildly excessive for provision of cards to all members, which I believe should be done at no charge. As the employment of locums is increasing and the carrying of membership certificates largely ignored, a point I have raised in these pages in the past, the possession of a photo card together with suitable amendment to regulations would seem sensible. However, our parsimonious Council considers that it would rather spend our money (note the use of the term "our money") on possibly unnecessary capital works on the Lambeth building.
Answers are necessary now before any contracts are put in place.
David Kent
London N21
Dr GORDON E. APPELBE (Treasurer of the Society) replies: The increases in fees for the current year average 3 per cent as permitted by the relevant Government departments. The Society is on a strict budget for the year on its income/expenditure account. The annual membership fees for some time have been, and still are, totally inadequate to cover the professional, ie, charter activities of the Society, particularly in the new areas of practice research and clinical governance expected of a progressive profession in the 21st century. Too much reliance has had to be placed upon the income generated by publishing in order to balance the accounts. This publishing income is now potentially at risk by external factors beyond the Society's control. In addition, market forces have seen salaries outstrip income in percentage terms.
As far as the three questions posed by Mr Kent are concerned:
(a) The Council has commissioned a feasibility study concerning the possible redevelopment of 1 Lambeth High Street, a building now over 24 years old
(b) With the massive increase in the workload of the Society over the 24 years, the Council has to give consideration as to whether better use can be made of the existing building in relation to space, running costs and potential income
(c) No decision has been made to redevelop 1 Lambeth High Street. If such a decision were to be made any cost would be funded from capital reserves not from the income/expenditure account
I can assure Mr Kent that transparency is one of my main objectives and that the membership will be kept informed of any further developments.