The Society

Special General Meeting — June 3, 2001

Agenda
Proposed rules of procedure
Statements received

Agenda

1. Apologies for absence.

2. Adoption of rules of procedure.

3. Discussion to consider whether the appointment of a non-pharmacist editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal was in the best interests of members; whether the appointment merits censure of the Council or individual members, or has led to loss of confidence in the Council by members attending the meeting.

4. Motions.

Proposed rules of procedure

There follows the proposed rules of procedure for the special general meeting.

1. The procedure of the meeting shall be governed by the normal rules of debate. Any speaker may speak for three minutes.

2. If any motion is put to the meeting, the mover of the motion shall propose the motion formally.

3. It shall be permissible for any member attending the meeting to second the proposition.

4. Every member present shall have one vote which will be cast by show of hands unless a motion for a secret ballot is carried. The motion under debate will be decided by a simple majority of votes. The chairman will have a second or casting vote.

5. After a motion from a member has been moved and seconded, the chairman or other speaker nominated by the chairman may, at some stage in the discussion, state any views of the Council or give any information in the Council’s possession which the Council may consider will assist the meeting in discussing the motion.

Statements received

Why has there been a delay?

The Council has decided to hold the special general meeting after 15 weeks, yet the relevant byelaw states that the meeting “shall be convened within such reasonable time ...”. Is 15 weeks a reasonable time? During the April Council meeting, the Council put forward the date of May 20 as the date for the SGM but this was heavily lost, the reason being that the notification of the SGM would have been before the return of Council election voting papers by May 18. This would have led to an unfair advantage to a candidate standing for the election. Had I not been standing, the meeting would have gone ahead as planned.

When I met the President Christine Glover and Secretary and Registrar Ann Lewis in March, I offered to withdraw myself from the election so that SGM could be called in March or April. But that opportunity was denied to me.

On May 5, the Council reported in the PJ that the SGM would take place on June 3. So the Council had gone ahead and done what it said should not have been done, ie, it published my request for an SGM before the end of the Council election process. Clearly, all the Council has been seeking to do is to put off the SGM for as long as possible in the hope that the opposition to its responsibility in making a wrong appointment as non-pharmacist editor would disappear.

In the PJ dated May 19, the Council had given the intended notice of SGM that the meeting has been called to consider whether the appointment of a non-pharmacist editor was in the best interest of members; and whether the appointment merits censure by the meeting of the Council or individual members,or has led to loss of confidence in the Council members attendng the meeting.

My requisition for the SGM was very specific and states: “This meeting has no confidence in the elected members of the Society’s Council for offering a non-pharmacist the post of editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal”.

The Official Notice published by the Council is at variance with my motion. The byelaw states “upon requisition in writing of not less than 30 members, requires the Council to convene SGM for the purpose specified in the requisition”.

The Council has got to a stage where it does what it pleases without any need to explain to the membership why my original motion has not yet been published along with the Official Notice in The Journal.

Ashwin Tanna, FRPharmS
London SE26

I have changed my mind

The Journal, from my perspective, is the only impartial channel of communication between the membership and the Society. When Andrew Haynes became acting editor I was impressed by the way he maintained the same high standards as Douglas Simpson. I thought that the Council would not dare to replace him with a non-pharmacist editor, especially after the letters in The Journal.

My feelings about the Society were (and are) at an all time low, so when a non-pharmacist editor apparently appeared overnight I was incensed, and I was one of the pharmacists who was less than polite to Olivia Timbs on the telephone.

I knew that Mr Tanna had obtained enough signatures for a special general meeting, calling for a motion of no confidence in the Council. I believed that a motion of no confidence was overkill, and that Council members who desired a pharmacist editor would be tarnished with the same brush as those who were directly responsible for the appointment.

I decided to collect signatures for a motion of censure against those responsible for the appointment of a non-pharmacist editor. When I submitted my petition I was invited to discuss the matter with Ann Lewis (Secretary and Registrar) and Christine Glover (President). I knew that no matter what they said, I would not change my mind about an SGM being required.

I had convinced myself that the appointment of Miss Timbs was made because she knew little of the machinations of the Society, and would bow to the demands of the Society over those of the members. I was convinced that she would be a puppet editor.

After my meeting with Miss Lewis and Mrs Glover, I also had a lengthy conversation with the letters editor, Graeme Smith, and Miss Timbs about various aspects of The Journal. I went home from this meeting having changed my mind. Miss Timbs knew what she was talking about. How could I ask for a vote of censure against the Council for employing an editor who may well have been the best choice? To cap it all, I read in The Journal of May 5 (p609) the list of people who were to be members of the editorial board. If she wanted to prove that she was going to listen to a wide spectrum of views, and not try to make life easy for herself, the choice of this board was just that.

I now firmly believe that the only scope for voting for a motion of censure may be over the events that preceded Miss Timbs’s appointment. In summary, I am only continuing with my support for an SGM (which will be an amendment to Mr Tanna’s), to offer an alternative to a vote of no confidence.

Philip Walton, MRPharmS
Manchester

Council should be transparent

I have three major concerns about the recent appointment of the editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal. These are:

Whether the process by which the editor was appointed was correct and in accordance with good corporate governance
Whether it is important or desirable to have a pharmacist as editor
Whether the reasonable wishes and concerns of the membership were fully canvassed and considered

In considering the process of the appointment, one has to question if such an important and influential appointment is a straightforward management decision, or whether it is a matter of policy. In my opinion there is little doubt that it should have been considered to be a policy decision, and the matter should have been fully and democratically debated in open Council last autumn. If this process had been undertaken then all the subsequent controversy would have been avoided: the Council would have voted on an open selection procedure, the membership would have been aware of the possibility or probability of a non-pharmacist editor, and they would have been able to make their legitimate views known at an appropriate stage. The main reason I proposed the initial SGM was to try to achieve an open debate; it was a considerable shock to find that the appointment was effectively a fait accompli.

Although it would be desirable to have a pharmacist as editor of The Journal, there has of course to be a satisfactory candidate available and willing to take the post. I hold the pragmatic view that ability and performance are the most important qualities for the position.

Were the wishes of the membership canvassed? The short answer to this is “no”. This however leads on to the question of whether there was a deliberate policy of obfuscation, or did those making the decision genuinely not realise just how controversial the matter would become?

However, the results of the Council election confirm the view that the majority of the voting membership are dissatisfied or unhappy with the recent conduct of Council business. The fact that Sultan Dajani topped the poll and Ashwin Tanna was elected clearly indicates that many voters voted against the status quo on Council.

It therefore behoves the Council to take very careful consideration of the election results and speedily institute corporate governance procedures that improve the democracy, and transparency of Council affairs.

In my opinion, the election of Mr Tanna negates the necessity for the SGM, and it should be withdrawn to save unnecessary expenditure.

Peter Schofield, MRPharmS
Cambridge

Profession is parochial and inward-looking

The calling of a special general meeting of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, to consider whether the appointment of a non-pharmacist as editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal was in the best interest of members, and whether the appointment merits censure by the meeting of Council or individual members, or has led to a loss of confidence in the Council by members attending the meeting, is ill advised on several counts.

First, it sends out a signal to the bodies currently scrutinising professions in general, and the health care professions in particular, that members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society are parochial and inward-looking. The fact that a non-pharmacist has been appointed indicates to a wider audience that the Council has a policy of appointing the best person for the job rather than settling for second best merely to appoint someone from within the membership.

Secondly, it shows a complete lack of sensitivity on the part of those members requisitioning the meeting. Miss Timbs was appointed on merit, as a result of a rigorous process; to tell her, effectively, that she is not wanted, for reasons that could be deemed contrary to equal opportunities legislation, is both insulting and unbecoming of a profession which prides itself on its caring and compassionate reputation.

Thirdly it indicates, to me at least, that those calling the SGM have little thought for the finances of the Society. The same people, who at the annual general meeting drew attention to the fact that the Society has expectations of the NHS plans which are currently taxing the Treasurer and his advisers on how to balance the budget, have set in motion a course of events which will incur unnecessary costs. Although special general meetings held in the past and described by Jonathan Buisson (PJ, May 12, p641) have centred on the way we practise our profession, this one does not. The outcome will have little bearing on the way we practise in the future; it will however serve, yet again, the purpose of airing our dirty linen in a very public place.

Edward Mallinson, FRPharmS
Glasgow

Concentrate on vital subjects

I am writing regarding the recent correspondence on the appointment of a new editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal. I am unable to attend the special general meeting and therefore the only way to express my view is via The Journal.

I feel that it does the pharmacy profession a great discredit that an SGM has been called over this particular issue. Although it is an important issue, the profession should concentrating its energies on even more vital subjects. Pharmacy should be addressing issues such as the role of support staff, the potential growth of e-pharmacy, and the loss of resale price maintenance on medicines. There are important clinical issues such as the impact of the various national service frameworks, and medicines management which also need to be addressed.

The columns of The Pharmaceutical Journal often moan that on the big health issues of the day pharmacy has a small and insignificant voice. I have frequently read letters complaining that one particular government or other fails to consult the pharmaceutical profession. Could the reason for this lack of influence on important issues be our own fault? Could it be that we are so inward-looking as a profession that it is hardly surprising that our voice is often ignored?

With regard to the position of editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal, the sole criterion should be to appoint the best person for the position whether or not he or she happens to be a pharmacist. The strengths and weaknesses of any profession are often clearer to someone outside of that profession. Therefore, having a non-pharmacist editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal should have the advantage of bringing a fresh view to the current issues of the day.

Now that the special general meeting has been called let us hope that it fully supports the appointment of a non-pharmacist as editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal. This will enable the profession to concentrate on more important issues.

Ian Maidment, MRPharmS
Canterbury, Kent