The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7152 p815-820
June 16, 2001

  RPM
  In-store pharmacies
  Pharmacy medicines
  Patient packs
  The Profession
  Future of pharmacy
  Coronary heart disease
  Influenza
  Checking technicians
  Dianette
  Paracetamol
  Monitored dosage systems
  Disillusioned youth
  Code of Ethics
  SGM
  Disposal of medicines
  Separate register
  Onlooker
  The Journal

Special General Meeting

Worth every penny

From Mr P. Walton, MRPharmS

I must comment on your leading article “Keep SGMs special” (PJ, June 9, p769). You suggest that, with easier communications, perhaps 100 signatories would be a more reasonable number of people needed to call a special general meeting of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and that they or their personal representative should attend the meeting. This would surely discriminate against people who live a good distance from London, effectively preventing them from ever successfully calling an SGM, and would be unworkable and unfair. A proxy vote would have to be allowed for all those who could not or did not want to attend. I understand that SGMs can be called for other reasons than to vote on motions, for example, to discuss issues that need an airing in public. Indeed, the first item I had on my call for an SGM was to discuss the issue of a non-pharmacist being given the job as editor of The Journal, which could have been a stand-alone reason for calling an SGM. The argument of easier communications to get the required number of votes to convene an SGM was used in this article.

I had to obtain my support for an SGM by calling round pharmacies in the Salford area. Approximately three fifths of pharmacists in community pharmacies in my area signed my petition. If they had been required to attend an SGM if they signed my petition I would not have got anywhere near this number of signatures. They assumed that I would speak on their behalf, and accurately reflect what I had discussed with them. The calling of this SGM was not an ill-thought-out or flippant act: it was the result of the Council seemingly ignoring members’ communications on this issue. One call for an SGM in 12 years is not an excessive number, and would indicate to me that the current system of calling an SGM to ensure that the Council takes heed of what members want from it is about right. The best way that the Council can avoid members calling SGMs is to communicate with us, making sure that we feel that they have done their best for the profession. Of course the Council could try to prevent the calling of SGMs by altering the threshold conditions required for one to be convened, which could well anger pharmacists enough to call another SGM to discuss the matter! I believe that the SGM that we have just had allowed very strong feelings to be publicly aired, and will allow you to get on with your job knowing that even those pharmacists most passionate on the subject generally supported your position. For this reason alone, the SGM was worth every penny spent on it.

Philip Walton
Manchester

Previous Topic (Code of Ethics)
Next Topic (Disposal of medicines)
Send your letter to The Editor