The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7212 p259-260
24 August 2002

Society summary

Distributed with The Journal this week is a questionnaire seeking readers' views on the third discussion paper (PDF 145K) produced by the Society's Modernisation Steering Group. Published as a centre pull-out with the 10 August issue of The Journal, the third paper examines issues concerning Council elections and Council membership. To coincide with the appearance of the questionnaire, we publish here a summary of the key points in the discussion paper. The aim of the questionnaire is to provide a snapshot response; more detailed responses should be submitted to the project manager for the modernisation programme (see panel below)

What will the Council look like in the future?
More points for comment

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is governed by a Council that currently consists of 21 elected pharmacists and three lay members. A pharmacist is eligible for election if he is normally resident in Britain, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands and is nominated by 10 pharmacists, five of whom are from his branch. There are no other restrictions on eligibility.

Candidates in Council elections are asked to observe restrictions on canvassing. There is currently no limit to the consecutive terms that a Council member may serve and no age limit for Council members.

Eligibility to stand for Council

Residency Candidates in Council elections must be members of the Society who are normally resident in Britain, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. It might be simpler to restrict eligibility to members whose registered address is in Britain, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.

Conflict of interest Conflicts of interest may arise from financial interests or from decisions regarding individuals or bodies who share a member's interests. Council members who are board members of other pharmacy bodies might sometimes experience a conflict of interest. Should any restrictions apply to such members?

In other professions, the general approach seems to be that someone would not be prevented from serving on two or more bodies within the same professional field. However, conflicts of interest might prevent a Council member from undertaking specific roles, eg, being on the board of a defence organisation might conflict with involvement in disciplinary processes.

Fitness-to-practise decisions The General Medical Council has proposed that candidates in its elections should declare any adverse decisions (other than warnings) on their fitness to practise and any serious criminal convictions. The General Dental Council's ballot papers will record any action taken against a candidate under fitness to practise rules. Candidates in elections to the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Health Professions Council must not be the subject of allegations or proceedings regarding fitness to practise.

Should candidates in Society elections be required to declare any adverse decisions on their fitness to practise or whether they are under investigation? A "requirement to declare" would not necessarily prevent a candidate from standing solely because of a fitness-to-practise decision against them but it could damage the reputation of the profession if this only became known after someone had been elected.

Current practice Candidates in HPC and NMC elections must "continue to practise, teach, manage or research within their profession". An equivalent requirement would mean that all pharmacist members of Council would be actively engaged in pharmacy, helping to ensure that the Council did not become out of touch. However, serving on the Council demands significant energy and time. A requirement to remain working within the profession might exclude some experienced pharmacists and reduce the number willing to serve. Knowledge of current practice could be brought in by other means.

Nominators A candidate for election to the Society's Council must have 10 nominators, five of whom are from his branch. This requirement might demonstrate that candidates have some local standing. It could also disadvantage pharmacists from specialist areas of practice, those who have national rather than local reputations, and those whose work makes it difficult for them to participate in branch activities.

Trusteeship Council members are trustees of funds, including the Benevolent Fund. The Charities Act disqualifies some people from acting as trustees — for example, undischarged bankrupts or those convicted of certain offences. It is a criminal offence to serve as a charity trustee when disqualified from doing so. Should candidates in Council elections be required to declare that they are eligible to serve as a charity trustee?

Canvassing

The Society's policy on canvassing in Council elections is aimed at giving candidates an equal opportunity of presenting their views and preventing any candidate having an advantage because of financial resources or other special influence.

Candidates are expected to refrain from canvassing and from allowing others to canvass on their behalf. They are asked not to send letters to the pharmacy press for publication. Editors may pose three questions to each candidate and publish replies. Candidates may announce their candidature in the magazines of organisations of which they are a member or employee. Hustings may be held provided that all candidates are treated equally.

These restrictions are seen by some as giving an unfair advantage to current Council members and others who are well known. It is suggested that the system does little to encourage new candidates, to allow pharmacists to assess the candidates or to motivate voters.

Restrictions on canvassing are not common in elections to similar bodies, beyond general ethical requirements — for example, that publicity be legal, decent, honest and truthful and have regard for professional propriety. The restrictions represent a voluntary agreement. It is difficult to see how they could be relaxed significantly without removing them. Removal of restrictions would raise demands on candidates' time but it might be thought that the restrictions are becoming unenforceable.

Term of office and frequency of elections

Council members serve a three-year term, with one-third retiring each year. This might be considered too short a time to gain experience and exert influence. A longer term might discourage those still pursuing their career from standing for election. Council members in other bodies serve a four- or five-year term.

Elections on a rolling basis provide continuity and avoid the potentially disruptive effect that a single topical issue might have on the Council's composition if all members stood down at one time. In some other bodies, all council members retire together.

Annual elections provide pharmacists with frequent opportunities to stand for the Council and to vote. They may also make it difficult for the Council to take a strategic, long-term view in its decision-making and may weaken the Society's ability to plan work programmes and budgets. The Council might be more effective if the frequency of elections was reduced.

Limit to consecutive terms of office

Should there be a limit to the number of consecutive terms that a Council member may serve? This would ensure new blood and counteract perceptions that the Council may become "fossilised". Imposing a limit could result in valuable Council members being forced to retire but they could be re-elected after having been out of office for one term.

Age limit

Should there be a maximum age limit for Council members? This might be considered to help the Council remain in touch with current thinking but this does not depend upon age. It could promote turnover of Council members. However, if a limit to consecutive terms were introduced, an age limit might not bring additional benefit.

Removal from Council

The Council needs to be confident that it can carry its statutory and professional responsibilities. It intends to enshrine its code of conduct in the byelaws in future, making it mandatory. This would provide a mechanism for removing or suspending a member from office if considered necessary. Other bodies have similar codes of conduct but a number also have provisions in legislation for removal of a Council member in exceptional circumstances. These might include: repeated absence from meetings; unacceptable conduct or bringing the Council into disrepute; a fitness to practise order being made against a member, or for health reasons.

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