The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7166 p381-384
22 September 2001

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

  Diet and health
  DTC advertising
  Indemnity insurance
  Pharmacy software
  Locums
  Medicine labels
  Statutory Committee
  The Council

The Council (2 letters)

Time to update and move with the times

From Mr J. D. Khan, MRPharmS

It was with great interest that I read the letter by Steve Davies et al (PJ, 8 September, p323). They must be commended for having the courage to speak out against the “establishment” and for their constructive comments, all of which I endorse. I am happy that I am not alone in thinking that Council meetings have become futile exercises that yield no positive outcomes for the profession and the Council operates like an old boys’ club reminiscent of the Victorian era.

I would like to echo the point that pharmacists are making progress at a local level, but not because of what the Council is doing. The Council is mostly oblivious to what is happening at grass roots level and is bogged down with trivia and time wasting. If a business was run as inefficiently as the Council it would be bankrupt in no time. It seems to be that to get an issue aired at a Council meeting one has either publicly to humiliate the Council, for example, via letters to The Journal, or have recourse to a special general meeting, because any constructive comments are ignored by the Council members. What happens to motions passed at branch representatives’ meetings or concerns raised at annual general meetings? Do Council members take any notice of letters in The Journal or letters by members addressed directly to the Secretary and Registrar? If the Council had a mechanism where comments were acted upon then members would not need to “wash their linen in public” — a defenceless statement issued by senior Council members when the Council is criticised.

The problem in my opinion is that Lambeth operates as though it is in a Victorian era with outdated byelaws, rules and regulations and is badly in need of updating to bring it in line with other bodies that are fit to operate in the 21st century. Revolution, not evolution, is needed. To make matters worse a lot of Council members are not happy in the decision making processes, mechanisms of working, lack of debate on crucial issues and lack of strategic direction. One can draw an analogy of a Council meeting to a school assembly with the President as headmaster, the Secretary and Registrar as deputy headmaster, the elite group as prefects and the remainder of the Council members as rowdy schoolchildren who listen attentively to the autocratic decisions made at the higher level. Lambeth must get out of this rut before it becomes extinct. It is time to update and move with the times.

J. D. Khan
Secretary,
Bury and Rochdale Branch,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Must members toe the party line?

From Mr W. T. Brookes, FRPharmS

A report on the rules of conduct for Royal Pharmaceutical Society Council members was recently published (PJ, 18 August, p245). During the debate on this issue, it was stated that Council members must act at all times as Council members and not as individuals, including when attending or speaking at general meetings of the Society.

As I understand it, this is based on the doctrine of collective responsibility which I take to be the adherence to and promotion of policies collectively agreed. Council members cannot speak or act against or behave in a manner contrary to these policies unless they resign from the Council.

Although I can see the force of this argument, it does seem to carry with it an element of authoritarianism which disturbs me, particularly the view that Council members have no rights at general meetings other than supporting the party line. I would therefore be grateful, in the light of this, for clarification on two points.

First, a main or common reason for members standing for Council is to try to change things, to question perceived wisdom and to put forward ideas which may run contrary to current thinking on Council. What is the position of such a member elected to the Council after a specific policy has been decided but with which he or she strongly disagrees and wishes to change? It may even be the platform on which the member has successfully stood for election. Is the member to become silent on this issue once elected? Or is new blood welcomed only if it agrees to accept the status quo?

Second, there may be issues raised at a general meeting on which I, as an individual member, ask for the reasons behind a particular policy and also the arguments against it. The best person to propound the latter could well be a Council member known to have opposed the decision and whose views I and others may ask to hear. What is that Council member’s position in such a situation?

We need a Council which works as a united body for the benefit of the profession. We also need on the Council members of what is sometimes termed the “awkward squad”, prepared to challenge custom and the establishment, to put forward views which others may find uncomfortable and to do this without fear of disenfranchisement. That balance may not always be easy, but it is necessary for the good of the whole. I wonder if the present position is the right one?

W. T. Brookes
Stoke on Trent,
Staffordshire

The Council always welcomes constructive debate, even if it proposes a change in current policy. However, Council members have collective responsibility for the ultimate decision reached by the Council. Paragraph 10 of the code of conduct allows Council members publicly to express their personal views on a policy of the Council so long as they also explain the reasons for the Council’s decision.

Back to Top

Previous Topic (Statutory Committee)
Send your letter to The Editor