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

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

Branch Representatives' meeting summary

Museum decision should be reversed

The meeting called on the Council to reverse its museum cutbacks and use the museum as a public relations tool.

JOHN E. BALMFORD (Cheltenham and Gloucester) moved that the Council "should realise the importance of the museum and historical collection and rescind the decision to greatly reduce the monies allocated to this activity". He said that the museum was a living reminder of pharmacy's great scientific and social heritage. Focusing on this history would increase public acceptance of pharmaceutical care services. Museum activities over recent years had done more to promote pharmacy than the public relations unit, from which little was heard.

He had just learnt that the budget cut was £111,000, He did not know if that was an annual or cumulative saving, but he did know that any savings would be reduced by redundancy payments, pension agreements and £12,000 a year to rent secure off-site storage, together with necessary insurance.

The announcement after the December Council meeting had done little to dispel worries over the future of the collections. All it seemed to do was to ensure that the Society could still receive grants for specific projects and not have to repay grants.

PHILIP WALTON (Manchester, Salford and Trafford) successfully moved an amendment to add the words "and the museum better used as a public relations tool".

ALLAN ASHER (East Metropolitan) said that the motion was one of a number concerning the Society's membership functions. If the Society was to be a regulatory organisation, then no doubt it did not need such appurtenances, but he urged everyone to let the Council know how they felt about what was being done destroy the membership part of the Society.