From Professor W. Dawson, FRPharmS
SIR,-Following the active correspondence in these columns over the past few weeks on salaries, probity and governance, I felt an alternative perspective might be beneficial.
Corporate governance is a difficult concept for most elected bodies whose membership may require their "elected member" to be diligent in representing their views, sometimes at all costs. This principle conflicts with the other "corporate" duty of an elected representative to make decisions which are best for the organisation. In most cases, any differences in position can be resolved with some discussion but occasionally issues arise which tax the strength of an individual. What is clear, however, is that in effective corporate governance the resolution of the conflict for the individual is to rule in favour of the organisation. For pharmacists, there is a third way, the invocation of the Guthrie principle, which was designed to allow a member to vote and speak according to his or her individual view. This has been superseded by the new procedures implemented after the Banks report which allow Council members to present their views but in context after a full representation of the consensus view of Council.
The resolution lies, in my view, in more open dialogue in the Council and with sufficient discussion so that a proper consensus is reached with everyone signing up to the decision reached. The corporate governance training undertaken by the Council and senior staff has created a framework for this to happen but it will take some time to become reasonably effective.
During the past two years under the new ways of working, we have introduced more transparency and greater consensus discussion into Council meetings. However, with many difficult topics to discuss, it is clear that Council meetings no longer run as smoothly as in the past as Council members and staff struggle to find answers to complex problems. In some cases, it has been clear that not all agreed with the consensus position reached and have used your columns to agonise over their position. In the closed world of pharmacy this is neither unusual nor problematic but to the world outside it does make the profession as a whole vulnerable.
In the meantime, where sensitive issues arise, such as the questions related to staff salaries, we must all exercise some restraint to help address legitimate questions whether from the annual general meeting or from individual Council members. In this case, the Council policy is to publish Hay bands and this seemed to be the answer sought and provided at the annual general meeting.
However, the detail of this question is, in my view, less important than the events which followed these attempts to acquire data. I think that there are two issues. The first relates to process, where I believe that if a Council member needs information, then this should be sought through the relevant director or the Secretary and Registrar. Problems here should be referred to the President. Lack of resolution of issues should then be taken to the Council. As far as I know this is the current situation. The second question relates to communication, and here the Council should address the current breakdown and ensure that it is not repeated. It must also resolve the question of publication of individual salary data and determine if it wishes to change its policy of only publishing Hay band data in the annual report.
It seems to me that Council members have recognised that the 21st century requires greater and more detailed communication with the membership and the Council is attempting to improve all aspects of this process, notably through the branches but also with individuals. Constructive thoughts on how the current programme can be improved are always welcome, especially where they are designed to raise the profile of the profession and do not damage the morale and standing of pharmacy.
W. Dawson
Member of Council, Royal Pharmaceutical Society