Branch Representatives' Meeting

Branch representatives have endorsed the concerns of the Glasgow and West of Scotland branch about the Society's branch network.
Mr DAVID THOMSON proposed on behalf of the Glasgow and West of Scotland branch "that the Council in consultation with the membership should review the structure, role and functions of the local branch network". He said that he was currently chairman of a successful branch with 1,100 members. Turn-out was not high because the geography of the local area did not lend itself to that, but there was a nucleus of very active members. He said the branch network was one of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's assets, and he was concerned that it might be damaged by the selective removal of certain elements, for example, pharmacy development groups.
Mrs ELIZABETH McCONECHY (Glasgow and West of Scotland) seconded the motion. She said that communication between pharmacists was the strength of the local branch network and the current trend of decline needed to be reversed.
Mr STAN WHEATLEY (Dorset) suggested the motion be amended by the addition of the word "operation" so that the motion called on the Council to review "the structure, role, operation and functions" of the local branch network.
The amendment was accepted by the Glasgow and West of Scotland branch.
Mrs JANET MAYNARD (Exeter) said she was guilty of having stopped attending branch meetings because of the pressure of attending other meetings.
She suggested it might be advantageous to amalgamate certain meetings which involved the same people, eg, Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education and health authority meetings.
The motion was carried.

David Thomson: branch network one of the Society's assets

The meeting did not agree with the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan branch that, in future, branches might need to employ professional and/or commercial assistance to help run branch affairs efficiently. Proposing a motion to that effect on behalf of the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan branch, Mrs
ROSEMARY WATERS expressed concern for the future of local branches. Many were struggling to keep going and some were dormant. She had made inquiries into the cost of having newsletters produced commercially, which would be prohibitive. A more high-tech approach to communications was required, which would involve training for branch officers.
Seconding the motion, Mrs HAZEL BAKER (Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan) said the branch network existed to provide a forum for pharmacists to discuss issues of mutual professional interest. It enabled pharmacists to influence the development of the profession through the BRM and gave the Society the opportunity to disseminate its policies to the members, thus providing a two-way flow of information. The branch offered a valuable source of networking. It was difficult to persuade members even to attend branch meetings, let alone take office. With the increasing responsibilities involved, the role of secretary would eventually have to be split because of the reluctance of anyone to take it on. An alternative was to employ a non-pharmacist on a commercial basis, which would be very expensive. However, the Society would lose a valuable means of communicating with its members if branches were to close.
Mr KEN GLEDHILL (Harrogate) was concerned that the running of branches should be looked at. His own branch had very poor attendance at meetings, particularly the branch annual general meeting.
Mr DESMOND HIGGINS (Macclesfield) said that it had been difficult to maintain his local branch because of the lack of involvement of pharmacists. He suggested a financial incentive for pharmacists to keep up to date with their training and to be active in their branch, for example, membership of the Society could be discounted for those who pulled their weight.
Mr RAJNIKANT HINDOCHA (Leicestershire) said branches were suffering because at local level they had no strategy to combat stagnation. Factors which affected attendance at meetings were things like venue, topic, quality of fellowship, age group, and parking facilities. Greater participation by all members would lead to less work for those already involved. It was not necessary to look outside the profession for commercial assistance. The Society's website could be used by branches. Younger members would be happy to interact and give their ideas in this way. Working with the computer could become part of the strategy at local level. Branches needed a strong programme of social events. His own branch had a chairman's dinner, for example, which also targeted other professions. He urged members to vote against the motion.
Miss KATE SMITH (Ipswich) said that she had been charged by her branch with investigating why younger members were not keen to attend meetings. She did not feel the involvement of non-pharmacists would encourage attendance and thought the secretary and committee members should be members of the profession. She urged members to vote against the motion.
Mr ARTHUR HUNTLEY (Bristol) came from a successful branch with good attendance. He said that 40 years ago the local chamber of commerce used to handle branch affairs, but the cost had eventually become prohibitive.
Mr EDWARD MALLINSON (Lanarkshire) said to go down the commercial route would be to lose a lot. There were people prepared to the job, as long as they did not feel the quality of their efforts was being measured by attendance levels. The secret of having a successful branch was to get pharmacists talking to each other to progress the profession at a local level, whether through centres of professional education or through local health care teams. The mere fact of low attendance at branch meetings should not be used to measure the input of the Society to pharmacy at local level. It was necessary to get pharmacists involved from a young age. He had tried to instil in the younger members of his own branch an enjoyment of the profession. He urged members to vote against the motion.
Mr MARK DONAGHY (Bradford) said the most time-consuming part of the branch secretary's job was the printing of letters and the sealing of envelopes. Such menial and laborious tasks could perhaps be delegated to Lambeth, which would relieve the secretaries of part of their burden.
Mr TONY CARSON (South West Metropolitan) said it was important to bear in mind that, although there were many successful branches, some branches were struggling. The motion merely asked members to consider those who needed some extra help, and commercial assistance might be the answer. He supported the motion.
Responding to the debate, Mrs WATERS said she was delighted at the number of speakers on the motion, both for and against. She felt strongly that pharmacists had a lot to offer the public, particularly in health education. She was constantly working to encourage members' participation in local branches.
The motion was lost by 51 votes to 37.
Mr MIKE BURDEN (Leicestershire) abstained.

Rosemary Waters: concern for the future of local branches