The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7201 p823
8 June 2002

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 225K

Branch Representatives' meeting

Representatives object to Council's treatment of branches

The meeting asked the Council to rescind two decisions that have affected the branches and were made without any consultation with them. One decision was to hold the 2003 BRM during the British Pharmaceutical Conference. The other was to withdraw funding for branch and regional representatives to attend the Conference.

The motion objecting to moving the BRM was proposed on behalf of the Moray and Banff, South Cheshire and Shropshire branches by GORDON LARGUE (Moray and Banff). He said that the annual general meeting attendance would suffer because few members attended the AGM other than those who were in London for the BRM on the following day. For many members attending the AGM was otherwise out of the question because of the time and expense involved.

JOHN GENTLE (Shropshire), seconding the motion, said that the Council decision was not what the branches wanted and would not achieve what it set out to do. The decision was supposed to improve attendance at the BPC, but how could it achieve that when even a free day at one recent conference had not increased attendance?

Furthermore, the May BRM and the October branch secretaries' meeting were well-spaced opportunities for the branches to bring to account decisions taken at Lambeth. Holding them three weeks apart in September and October meant a delay of nearly 12 months before the branches had an opportunity to come back. Democracy had been sacrificed for a few dollars more.

BILL BROOKES (South Cheshire) said that the BRM and the BPC were totally separate meetings attracting different audiences. If, as expected, the branch representatives would only attend the BRM and not the BPC, what was the advantage of the move? He was concerned that the Council made decisions that it knew the membership did not want. The BRM had already said it did not wish to be linked with the BPC, so why had the Council pursued it?

Research had shown that members attending the BRM accounted for nearly half the numbers at the AGM. Moving the BRM would leave an undemocratic AGM run by the Council and the south-east.

CHRIS CAIRNS (South East Metropolitan) said that the decision demonstrated the Council's contempt for the members.

On behalf of the South Cheshire and Bolton branches, Mr BROOKES moved that the decision to withdraw central funding for branch and regional representatives attending the BPC was not in the best interests of the membership and should be rescinded. For as long as he could remember it had been Society policy to fund some of the costs for two members from each branch to attend the BPC. While not covering everything, this funding allowed them to participate in events and report back to their branches. In particular, it gave many young pharmacists their first taste of involvement in pharmaceutical affairs in a national forum. But without consultation the Council had pulled the financial plug.

In a letter to branch and regional secretaries, Beverley Parkin (the Society's Director of Public Affairs) had written: "Branches and regions wishing to send representatives to conference will be free to decide how many members' fees and expenses they wish to fund, subject to their financial position." At over £500 a throw, that "freedom" imposed a huge financial burden.

The decision was shortsighted because it would cut the numbers able to attend. It had been taken without consultation by a Council that claimed to set great store on involving members in policy decisions. And it downgraded the branch network in the Council's priorities. The conference was where practising pharmacists could make the grass roots contributions so sorely needed. The Council should encourage, not discourage, attendance by those in the front line.

KEITH WILLIAMS (Bolton), seconding, said that the Council's action would drastically reduce the number of practising pharmacists attending the BPC. All that would be left were those who had their expenses and fees reimbursed by their employer. It was the start of a slippery slope that would lead the BPC into oblivion.

MICHAEL BURDEN (Leicestershire and Rutland) said that he would have been happy for the branches and region to take responsibility for funding attendance at the conference if the money previously spent on that exercise had been given to them. But they had been given a responsibility without funding, which was iniquitous.

CHRISTINA LOWE (Morgannwg) said that the conference was a unique opportunity to network with colleagues across sectoral boundaries. Branch representatives were glad to give up a few days' leave and the balance of the costs to be able to attend. Their loss would weaken the conference.