The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7164 p321-324
8 September 2001

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

  Medication errors
  Statins
  The Society
  The Journal
  The Council
  Infant soy formula
  Community pharmacy

The Council

Let us have a wide-ranging, rigorous and open debate

From Mr S. Davies, MRPharmS,
Mrs S. Gidley, MRPharmS,
Ms J. Golding, MRPharmS,
Ms J. Lamberty, MRPharmS,
Ms H. S. McKnight, MRPharmS,
and Mr J. P. Schofield, MRPharmS

At what point during the Council meeting did we lose the will to live?

That may seem a flippant comment. However, it does crystallise the thoughts of six pharmacists who observed the proceedings of the Council meeting on 7 and 8 August.

We all have much experience of attending high level committee and/or board meeting. What were we expecting from the Council meeting?

• An open and transparent process of decision-making
• A demonstration of leadership
• A vision for the profession shown through the items on the agenda
• High quality, informed debate
• A commitment to progress and moving the profession forward

What did we observe?

• A process obstructive to progress
• A lack of openness and transparency
• A disproportionate amount of time spent on procedural minutiae and points of order
• Little or no time for debate on strategic issues of the day

These comments are based on our attendance at those parts of the meeting we were allowed to observe. We are unable to comment on the four hours of debate we were excluded from in the middle of the agenda. Part of this time was apparently spent discussing an individual and part discussing budgets (our money).

The commitment of the large majority of Council members and the Society’s staff was evident during the two days. However, we would like to make the following constructive suggestions:

— Items of strategic importance should be added to the Society’s agenda as soon as possible, debated in full by the Council (preferably in the open part of the meeting) and effective work programmes established. We are aware of the hard work that goes in within the committee structure, but some items proceed too slowly or pass through the net altogether.

— The Council and the Society should become more proactive. We need to be involved at the early stages of production of national documentation rather than just writing a professional response.

— Executive summaries or briefings of all items relating to pharmacy should be distributed to all Council members by Society staff as soon as possible after publication and the relevance to pharmacy explained where necessary. It was clear that certain Council members were not aware of recent publications relating to generics or “Shifting the balance of power” (on the future of health authorities and NHS Executive regional offices).

— An appraisal scheme for Council members should be introduced.

— Where progress is being made in strategic development, this should be shared with members using as many different methods of communication as possible. Where good work is going on we often do not know about it.

— Members of the profession should use their Council vote next time and think carefully about the motivation of those they are voting for.

— Committed pharmacists should think about standing for election to the Council themselves.

— Observers at future meetings should be asked to sign confidentiality agreements rather than be excluded from parts of the meeting discussing items such as budgets. We would not expect observers to be admitted to hear sensitive issues such as disciplinary discussions, however.

— More openness is needed. Much of the agenda is discussed in closed session. We were able to observe but this part of Council business is not normally reported. One of the items under discussion was an NHS consultation document. Why is the Council’s debate not publicly available?

In summary, we may be an eclectic group of committed pharmacists. There has never been a more exciting time for pharmacy. If through this letter we can generate a small spark of enthusiasm from fellow pharmacists who feel the same as we do, about getting a debate started in the profession about the changes necessary in the Society, then our attendance at the meeting will have been worth it. We are prepared to take whatever is thrown at us.

We feel it is sad that much of the progress that the profession is currently making at a local level is happening despite, and not because of, our Council.

Let us have a wide-ranging, rigorous and open debate! Some may see this as washing the dirty linen of the profession in public, but many have tried and failed to change things by taking a softly, softly approach.

Steve Davies
Doncaster Branch

Sandra Gidley
Member of Parliament for Romsey

Jan Golding
Manchester, Salford and Trafford Branch

Jackie Lamberty
Brighton Branch

Helen McKnight
North West Region

Peter Schofield
Anglia Region

Back to Top

Previous Topic (The Journal)
Next Topic (Infant soy formula)
Send your letter to The Editor