From Mr A. Cox, MRPharmS
SIR,-Mr Coleman (PJ, August 26, p294) writes in support of Bryan Veitch's letter urging entente cordiale (PJ, August 19, p264), welcoming it as a "breath of fresh air". I would agree with Mr Coleman that our profession is being side-tracked from making its views known by infighting.
However, the breath of fresh air needs to blow through the corridors of Lambeth, and the doors need opening to allow the cobwebs out. These problems are surfacing precisely because too much of the debate takes place in private without the knowledge of the membership or even the Council.
I, in common with Mr Coleman, would be more impressed to see the Council actively pursuing issues of relevance to the membership and I also share Mr Coleman's concern about the number of special interest groups and subcommittees. Recently, a committee unknown to the membership or the Council was uncovered following questions raised by Mr Dajani. This is unacceptable in a democratic body such as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and I would hope that Mr Coleman would concur.
I welcome any attempts to pursue greater accountability and transparency at the Society. It must be remembered that those who uncover failings within our Society are not the problem, but are in fact the solution.
Do we think the Statutory Committee brings the profession into disrepute when it uncovers poor practice? No, its actions help maintain the status of the profession. Those such as Mr Dajani, who are prepared to put themselves in the line of fire, should be commended for their efforts to protect the Society for the membership.
From Mr Dajani's statements it would appear that the Council is not in control of our Society. Perhaps, a good example of how the Council has been directed down a route wasteful of the membership's resources is the issue of the editorship of The Journal. The handling of this issue is instructive as to how the Council is managed by others at the Society.
The issue of the editorship of The Journal was settled at a special meeting of the Council on August 5, 1998 (PJ, August 15, 1998, pp229-230). Editorial freedom and the role of the editor within the structure of the Society were clearly defined.
Following the decision by Mr Douglas Simpson to leave his post, the job of the editor could have been advertised and the present structure left intact as agreed by the democratically elected Council.
However, the President of the Society, at the August Council meeting, said that the editorship of The Journal was referred by the group of Officers to a new task force. The Council had no say in this decision, and indeed when Mr Kirit Patel attempted to present a motion on the role of the Council in the appointment of the editor, he was told this was not possible within the standing orders of the Council.
The fact that the President was unprepared for the issue for the editorship question and that the Vice-President thought the Council members might react to what was being said are indicative of the regard the Council is held in by some. Mrs Banks suggested the issue should not be discussed "off the cuff" as it was not on the agenda.
Since the departure of the current editor was known long before the August Council meeting, why was it not seen fit to allow the Council the opportunity to decide the correct course of action? The failure to place this item on the agenda at the August Council meeting is further evidence of the lack of regard for our elected representatives.
The corporate governance working party will also be considering the issue of the editor post. This working party was appointed by the Council immediately prior to this year's annual general meeting, following a previous failure to communicate with the Council, and was to address "flaws revealed by this incident, and ensure that proper and effective governance measures are put in place for the future". I doubt very much that the Council ever thought this working party would ever review the role of editor. The only issue of corporate governance involving the editorship of The Journal, is why the group of Officers feel it within their power to send it to any working party rather than allowing the Council to have its say.
The Council has the full power to manage the Society's affairs; it is time it was allowed to do so. Neither the Council nor the membership need to engage in entente cordiale with any other groups within the Society; they are the Society. An entente cordiale also requires both sides to co-operate and one side appears to think it is above such a discussion.
I hope that other members of the Council will lend their open support to those on the Council prepared to represent the membership and finally break this deadlock. These issues of corporate governance can be resolved quickly by those concerned, and save the membership valuable resources and time. All they need to do is come clean, put this behind us and take pharmacy forward.
Anthony Cox
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands