PJ Online | PJ Letters: The Society

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

	The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 268 No 7193 p495-498 13 April 2002	This page Reprint Photocopy
		PDF* 70K

Letters

  Multiple pharmacy
  Childhood vaccination
  Prescribing
  Script endorsement
  Careers
  Hospital pay
  CPD
  The Conference
  CPPE
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.

The Society

So much for transparency

Members are entitled to information on financial accounts

So much for transparency

From Mr M. R. Hickey, MRPharmS

I understand from reading various postings on Private-Rx that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has been holding a series of "modernisation briefings" at Lambeth. I understand that those invited were described as "forward thinking pharmacists", and that those attending were described as "leading thinkers and activists within the profession".

Is it not strange then that the Society was virtually unable to find pharmacists from Scotland who fitted these descriptions? Is it because we are bereft of ideas or limited of talent, or is it finance and expense? Perhaps pharmacists from Scotland cost too much money when you want to find out what they think. Better just to take their subscriptions and then let them know what has been decided after the decision has been made.

Whatever is going on I feel that there has been a catastrophic failure of the democratic process in respect to the membership in Scotland — or should that be regulants? I suppose we will be told eventually. So much for transparency and democracy.

Maurice Hickey
Forres, Morayshire

CHRISTINE GRAY (project manager, modernisation programme, Royal Pharmaceutical Society) replies:

The briefing meetings on the modernisation programme held during March were deliberately small meetings (involving 26 pharmacists in total), providing an opportunity for informal discussion with some forward thinking pharmacists. Three pharmacists were invited from Scotland but unfortunately only one was able to attend.

In addition, discussions on the modernisation programme have already taken place in Edinburgh, Cardiff and London with the Society's Scottish and Welsh Executives and at a meeting involving representatives of the Council and of the Executives. All the Society's branches in Scotland have been invited to request a speaker on the modernisation programme and some have already taken up this opportunity.

Hopefully, many more pharmacists in Scotland will contribute to discussions on the modernisation programme over the coming months.

Members are entitled to information on financial accounts

From Mr G. M. Hill, MRPharmS, and others

In May 2001 the Hull branch proposed at the branch representatives' meeting that Council should provide fuller and clearer annual financial accounts and also that the honorary auditors should have an expanded role in reviewing the accounts. The Council turned the motion down stating that there are internal committees overseeing financial activities and making sure that everything is under control and that the Council provides no less information than is the minimum required by Companies House.

The Hull branch does not accept this response. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is not a limited company, nor (yet) a quango. It is a membership organisation and ordinary members are entitled to receive a full and clear account of the way in which their money is being spent. Similarly, the honorary auditors, who represent ordinary members' interests, not those of the Council, should have enough data and sufficient time to conduct an appropriate investigation of income/expenditure against the chartered objectives of the Society.

Since last year's BRM our concerns have grown. The Council has increased fees by an unprecedented 30 per cent. It also appears to have spent rather more than was expected on the 2001 British Pharmaceutical Conference, since it will no longer fund two delegates per branch and is even restricting Council members attending the BPC in 2002.

We sent a letter expressing our concerns to all members of Council in November 2001. The feedback that we have received and the release of some data in the PJ (2 February, p151) have increased our concerns further.

We are particularly concerned at the large amount of money being spent on supporting the extension of the continuing professional development pilot, especially as the results of this have never been published. This secrecy, it seems, is to protect the intellectual property of the pilot. This is baffling.

Just as baffling are the proposed costs of IT development. These are colossal. If an IT consultant costs £600–£1,000 a day then £297,000 would get a massive amount of programming and data storage.

We are also concerned that the majority of the CPD costs appear to be aimed just at community pharmacists, clearly not benefiting pharmacists in industrial, hospital, and academic sectors of the profession.

We would therefore like to ask the Treasurer the following questions about the finances of the Society. We are doing so openly through the PJ because we feel it is important that the answers are published to all members and are in the public domain.

The Society has a budgeted spend of £297,000 to update and enhance its membership database system.

How exactly will this be spent and how much will be recurring costs?
How will this benefit the membership?
What were the costs of updating it a couple of years ago?
What will be the final cost of revamping it for modernisation, including data load and validation?
Is it really necessary or practical to exchange personal information with other health professional databases, bearing in mind the legal restraints imposed by the Data Protection Act?

The budgeted spend to extend the unpublished CPD pilot to 5,000 members is £242,000.

When can we expect to see the results of the pilot published?
Does the membership need to be prepared to pay an extra 9 x £242,000 in annual fees to fund mandatory CPD for the 45,000 pharmacists on the register?

The budgeted spend to research, develop and implement modernisation is £438,000 in 2002.

How much has been spent on modernisation in the past two financial years?
How has the modernisation strategy been developed to date?
What has been achieved?
What are the milestones for the modernisation process in 2002?
What is the timetable for completion of the process?

G. M. Hill
Cottingham, North Humberside

P. J. McGorry
M. P. Smith
A. S. Hersom
B. Wells
Hull, North Humberside

J. McDonald
Beverley, North Humberside

DAVID ALLEN, Treasurer, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:

I find the letter from the Hull branch difficult to answer because of the number of misconceptions introduced at various points throughout the text. The branch, via Dr Hersom, sent Council members a letter in November which I answered personally and to which I received no response.

The Society's finance team runs a structured budgetary system to which all budget holders have subscribed. Individuals within the management team and individual budget holders put a lot of work to ensure that budgets were adhered to during the 2001 financial year. The accounts are being audited at the present time and when they have been signed off by the auditors and Council then the membership will be fully apprised of the results. It would be totally unprofessional for our figures to be placed in the public arena until our accounts have been audited.

At our meeting with the honorary auditors last year new systems were put in place: they will receive any information necessary in order to verify the governance of the accounts when they are presented to them this month. At no time during this financial year have they expressed any concern as to the appropriateness of the systems in place.

Any developments in the profession such as continuing professional development and modernisation will not, in my opinion, be able to be carried out within existing resources and this has been explained in the PJ (11 August 2001, p209) as reasons for the increase in membership fees during 2002. The questions on financial matters posed by the branch have all been budgeted during the 2002 financial year and expenditure will be carefully monitored during the year. I do not believe that it is good practice for these budgets to be in the public arena. However if there are concerns about the 2001 accounts then I will answer any questions from members at the AGM in May .

I and the finance team have put robust systems in place over the past two years to ensure that the Society goes forward in a positive way with monies available to move the Society ahead in the 21st century in what will be a challenging agenda for the profession.

I will be retiring from Council this June but I believe that we all have a duty to ensure that our Society meets the Government's agenda on reform and is able to meet the challenges facing the profession in the years ahead. Financially I believe that we will be able to take the Society forward and I look forward to this progress being achieved.

Previous Topic (CPPE)
Send your letter to The Editor