Other topics covered include: President seeks members' support for corporate governance plans; Balance sheet strong despite 1999 deficit; AGM adopts revisions to Code of Ethics; and Presentation of fellowship certificates
|
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society's annual general meeting has rejected by an overwhelming majority a motion criticising the way in which the Society has purchased a flat in a development adjacent to its headquarters. One participant in the debate suggested that the motion turned the whole issue into a witch-hunt.
The AGM now had before it a briefing, which Mr Cox said had regrettably been given out at the 11th hour, when it could have been given out weeks ago to the membership. It was a cynical manipulation and he hoped that assembled colleagues would see it for what it was. |
Briefing paper: Purchase of an apartmentThe Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has issued the following briefing paper about the Society's purchase of an apartment in a development adjacent to the Society's headquarters. Many members of the Society have expressed concern in the past few months about the proposed purchase of an apartment in a new development adjacent to the Society's headquarters, "Parliament View". At its meeting in April, the Council debate identified a number of problems with the Society's processes that had contributed to the confusion that surrounded the handling of this matter. At the request of the President a full examination of the events that occurred has taken place. This has revealed a number of procedural flaws that raise concerns about the processes of the Society. In consequence, the Officers and the Council are taking action to address those flaws and to put robust systems in place for the future.
Background: accommodation and facilities in Lambeth Consideration of the purchase of an apartment was one element of broader plans for modernisation of the headquarters building in Lambeth. Surveyors appointed by the Society have given strong advice that substantial refurbishment is required in order for the building to retrieve its premium value and recapture its underlying asset value. The current asset value has diminished in real and relative terms in recent years by several million pounds because it no longer matches modern standards, and this we need to reverse. Release of the space in the building currently occupied by the President's flat to provide more meeting room space is a part of the proposals. The need for a flat is essential because the President spends, on average, three to four days a week in London.
Misleading statement Contracts were exchanged in November, 1999, but this was not communicated to the Officers or to the Council, and an inadvertently misleading press statement was published in February, 2000, stating that an option had been purchased. Thereafter there was a lengthy delay before the Council and members were informed of the true position. Action for the future The Council has appointed a corporate governance working party, chaired by the Vice-President. This will review and recommend changes to the present systems in place to address the flaws revealed by this incident, and ensure that proper and effective governance measures are put in place for the future. This work is already under way and proposals for overhaul of financial governance processes have been prepared.
|
Mr GRAHAM PHILLIPS (St Albans), seconding the motion, said that, according to the Society's consultation document on the workings of the Council: "The Society's Council is under a duty to manage the affairs of the Society. It is crucial, therefore, that the Council is effective, accountable and transparent in its ways of working when acting on behalf of the profession. Further, it is essential that the Council commands the respect of and represents the views of the membership and responds to public and government expectation."
Society demanded accountability and openness within professional bodies. The problems of transparency, the role of the Officers and the machinations around the election of the President were dirty linen that had already been washed. The Council was to be congratulated upon grasping the nettle and revising not only how it worked but the transparency under which it worked.
Mr Phillips said that he supported the Council in its attempts at reform. But if a few individuals could commit the Society to spending over £500,000 in apparent transgression of the Byelaws, one had to ask what else was being suppressed.
He understood that £40,000 had been spent on a project entitled Cat Mat [sic], the purpose of which was to examine the relationship between the Council and the membership. Nothing about this expensive project has ever been published apart from a small item in The Journal in response to a recent letter. Perhaps the result made unpalatable reading. The conclusion that the whole thing had been hushed up was inescapable.
Despite the appearance of the 11th hour briefing paper about the flat, questions were left unanswered and the doubts remained. If colleagues felt that openness and transparency were essential, were concerned that the democratically elected Council had been bypassed and demanded to know who would be made accountable, they should support the motion.
The PRESIDENT said that the briefing document had been put to the meeting merely to facilitate the debate and to make it easier to understand what had gone on.
The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the Byelaws had not been broken. Section XIV of the Byelaws, on funds and property, was in three parts. The first dealt with the way in which the Council might deal with property that was under the control of the Society and listed several ways in which the funds and property may be invested. It was under that aspect of the Byelaw that the transaction had been carried out. The second part of that Byelaw went on to authorise investments in foreign securities. The third part [the part cited by Mr Cox] dealt with the disposal of types of property other than investment.
The PRESIDENT said that earlier that day the Council had agreed to take forward a project to explore how best to reverse the decline in the relative value of the headquarters building as an asset and to make optimal use of the premises as a working environment (see p753). The decision had followed a presentation to the Council from its property advisers of an ambitious scheme that would require a multi-million pound investment in the building but which would recoup more than this in terms of the value of the building.
The Council had not made any commitment to any aspect of the scheme but would establish a steering group to consider this and other options. Wide-ranging planning proposals would be lodged so as to enable any decision reached to be implemented without undue delay. The members would be kept informed of the plans and progress. As part of the project, the Council had agreed to complete the purchase of the apartment in Parliament View both as an investment and to support any decision to proceed with the refurbishment works of the headquarters building.
The President said that she wanted to make that clear so that the meeting would not feel that anything was being kept from it.
Mr NICHOLAS WOOD (Chelmsford) said that what he was concerned about was that the motion appeared to turn the whole thing into a witch hunt. There were so many things that the Society needed to deal with - clinical governance, corporate governance, the fact that there was still no chief pharmacist in the Department of Health, and the continuing absence of the Government strategy for pharmacy. Navel-gazing about the Society's internal structures was distracting the profession and distracting the Society from what it was meant to be doing.
Mr Wood strongly urged the proposers to withdraw their motion. It was not appropriate for us to have a witch hunt when the Council should be doing far greater things on the members' behalf to progress the profession rather than navel-gazing at what has gone wrong in the past. "You have had your apology. Surely that is enough."
Mr MICHAEL BURDEN (Leicester), agreeing with Mr Wood, said that there was a host of issues that should be occupying Council members, the Officers and the staff of the building. A decision had been made based on advice about the use of the building. Perhaps it could have been communicated more appropriately. But the meeting should accept the sentiments of the briefing document. Mr Burden also urged the proposers to withdraw their motion. Failing that, he would urge the meeting to vote against it.
Mr KIRIT PATEL (Croydon) said that if something was perceived to have been done in a wrong manner, it was for the Council to sort it out. Things like this should not be dragged out in an open AGM. He therefore strongly urged that the matter should be thrown back where it belonged - with the Council.
Enough had been made of the matter. Perhaps lessons had been learnt. There were plenty of important things to discuss, and it saddened him to see such quibbling. He urged the meeting to vote against the motion.
Mr PETER JONES (Edinburgh) endorsed the comments of the previous two speakers about the priorities and other major issues that the Society had to look at. With the benefit of the "retrospectoscope", it was always easy to identify shortcomings in what had been undertaken. The statement provided to the meeting had obviously recognised this and made proposals as to how the scenario could be more properly handled in the future.
The Society, in common, he understood, with some of the royal medical colleges, had been looking carefully at accommodation needs both in terms of increasing office accommodation and suitable accommodation for their presidents. He hoped that the Society could adopt a pragmatic attitude and proceed with the purchase of the accommodation that was obviously needed.
Mr Jones said that the meeting should either vote against the motion or ask that it be withdrawn.
Mr TONY CARSON (London) said that he was delighted to see the briefing paper tonight and delighted to see some of the statements within it. He asked for an assurance that the document would actually be published in The Journal for the benefit of the full membership.
The PRESIDENT replied that the document was in the public domain and the Council would be happy to do that. She drew attention to the bottom of the first paragraph, which said that the matter had revealed a number of procedural flaws that raised concerns about the processes of the Society. In consequence, the Officers and the Council were taking action to address these flaws and put robust systems in place for the future.
Mr COX, summing up, said that the motion was nothing to do with whether the Society proceeded with the purchase of the flat. It was about accountability, about the errors and failure in the process. He was not talking about a Council decision that had gone wrong but about a decision that had been made outside of the Council.
In August, 1999, the Council had approved a proposal to open up the meeting of the Society's Officers because the Council recognises the need to conduct business as openly as possible but meetings of the Officers were held not just in private but in total secrecy.
Action of the motion should be used to prevent further undermining of the democratic processes of our organisation. Supporting the motion would send a clear message.
The motion was then put to the meeting and was lost.
