The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7200 p781-786
1 June 2002

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

Branch Representatives' meeting summary

Meeting seek review (but not withdrawal) of canvassing rules

The BRM called on the Council to review the rules on canvassing in the Council election but stopped short of asking for the rules to be withdrawn.

A motion that the canvassing rules should be withdrawn was proposed by Dr ANGELA ALEXANDER (Slough) on behalf of the Moray and Banff branch as well as her own branch. She said that she was asking for "evidence-based voting", which the current restrictions prevented. The members needed more evidence on the candidates they were asked to elect to Council.

Seconding the motion, GORDON LARGUE (Moray and Banff) said that he was from a remote branch where many members did not know or had never even heard of some election candidates. How did they know who to vote for? Canvassing might increase the vote.

PHILIP WALTON (Manchester, Salford and Trafford) proposed by way of amendment that the word "review" should replace "withdraw". His branch felt that there should still be some rules.

MICHAEL BURDEN (Leicestershire and Rutland) said that withdrawing the rules would allow candidates with funds to canvass more widely and energetically than others. Reviewing the rules seemed more sensible.

ANTHONY COX (Birmingham) said that the amendment made the motion too weak. Democracy was about free speech, and that was all there was to it.

CHRIS CAIRNS (South West Metropolitan) said that he supported the amendment but would urge the Council, if the motion was accepted, to review the rules within the sentiment of the original motion.

MARK KOZIOL (Birmingham) said that if the rules were withdrawn some significant vested interests within the profession would find it easy to spend a few thousand pounds to get their candidates on to the Council. He supported the amendment.

STEVEN CURTIS (Harrow and Hillingdon) said that withdrawing the rules completely was far too risky. What the members wanted was a level playing field.

Dr ALEXANDER, opposing the amendment, said that the meeting had asked for a review two years ago and had seen no change. The rules were not needed because they were already being bypassed.

The amendment was then carried and the amended motion was carried.