Branch representatives did not support the Weald of Kent branch in its proposal for the setting up of an electoral college for the Society's Presidential elections.
The unsuccessful motion, "that the President and Vice-President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should be elected by an electoral college made up of the branches of the Society, with each branch having a number of votes in proportion to its membership", was proposed by Ms FIONA EVANS. She said that the current process was not transparent and the outcome of elections in the past two years had left pharmacists surprised by their lack of influence in the appointment of a key representative. Following the previous year's election, there had been 10 letters complaining about the election of the President and Vice-President, including letters from current and past members of Council. At the August Council meeting it had been reported that "the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is taking steps to discuss and resolve a number of issues such as the election of the President that have caused problems within the Council and drawn criticism from the membership". At the December Council meeting it had been agreed that "in future the annual election of the Society's President, Vice-President and Treasurer should take place in public". This motion proposed a real alternative to the one endorsed by the Council.
Seconding the motion, Mr ANTHONY COX (Birmingham) said that any President elected by the proposed mechanism would have a clear mandate from the electorate, which would make him or her more accountable to the membership. It would also help breathe extra life into the branch structure.
Mr GIANPIERO CELINO (Harrow and Hillingdon), speaking against the motion, said that it did not reflect members' concern about how the President was elected. The correct way of electing a President fairly was to allow each and every member a vote.
Mr NICHOLAS WOOD (Chelmsford) said the proposed system would be cumbersome and unwieldy and would take a lot of time and effort to arrange. Members of the Council knew the candidates personally, knew their credentials and their qualities. Expanding the electorate was not the way to make such a difficult decision. He trusted the Council to make the correct decision, and where mistakes had been made in the past, they had been put right. Though there was a certain lack of transparency, all Council members had been elected and were in the best position to elect a President from within their own ranks.
Mr TONY CARSON (South West Metropolitan) said Presidents over the past few years had done a good job. However, the process of voting was not satisfactory. The membership were disgusted with what had happened over the past few years, which was one of the reasons for the low turn-out for Council elections. Presidents had not been able to work with true authority, had not been able to give leadership, and the Council had lost the moral right to appoint the President. There should be a change, but he was not certain whether what was proposed in the motion was the best way forward.
Mr MACDONALD COVENTRY (Swindon) spoke against the motion. He said a vote for a Council member was a vote for a future President, and any such person should have the confidence of the membership to be elected as President.
The PRESIDENT remarked that this issue might helpfully be discussed at branch meetings.
The motion was lost.
|
Fiona Evans: current presidential election process not transparent
|
