From Mr J. D. Khan, MRPharmS
SIR,-After reading the letters by Professor Veitch and Mr Fox (PJ, August 19, p264), I feel compelled to write a letter on the issues involved.
Transparency and accountability at Lambeth is a democratic right of the membership and not optional or discretionary, as Professor Veitch implies, and there does not have to be a hidden agenda to demand that senior Council officers come clean about the Society's finances.
I am sure that Professor Veitch would expect the same from members of the College of Pharmacy Practice, to whom he is accountable.
Mr Fox got an unsatisfactory answer at the Society's annual general meeting, and Mr Dajani, in his capacity as a Council member, took this issue up on the members' behalf and has yet to get a simple answer to a very simple question regarding pay rises awarded for some senior staff at Lambeth. Hence there is no wrong doing on either Mr Fox's or Mr Dajani's part; they are both simply exercising their democratic rights.
Mr Dajani resorted to a press release after all official channels had been exhausted apart from receiving the bureaucratic answers by the President and senior officials at Lambeth. Mr Dajani is serving the membership and in doing so does not have to support the status quo if it is against the members' interests.
The Society's finances are nothing to be proud of, as pointed out by Dr Evans and Dr Appelbe. The Society is spending unnecessarily on a presidential flat and awarding excessive pay rises to senior personnel at Lambeth; meanwhile funding for essential projects is being withheld because the Society cannot afford it!
The PJ is a forum of debate for the membership to air their views and concerns (at the moment at least) and not the "mouthpiece" of the Society's hierarchy and hence this is the right medium to be asking these type of questions, whether they be sensitive or otherwise.
I wholeheartedly agree with Professor Veitch that there are more important matters to be dealt with but if the membership does not have trust or confidence in the leadership and there appear to be "splits" on the Council and these issues need to be addressed and remedied as a greater priority.
All the points in Professor Veitch's final paragraph are valid if the Council operates in an ideal environment where everything is democratic and transparent and accountability is observed, but this is sadly not the case; instead we have an autocratic regime ran by an "elite" group.
The "old boys brigade" is still in evidence today and we need a revolution not evolution. I cannot see the reforms happening until the President looks honestly and critically at "corporate governance".
Finally, if there is nothing to hide or be ashamed of, why the secrecy? The officers and the President should come clean with the membership. Strong leadership does not mean dictatorship. Maybe the Society should streamline its "representative" and "regulatory" functions as proposed by Cox and Fox (PJ, August 19, p263).
J. D. Khan
Working Parties Co-ordinator, Young Pharmacists' Group