The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7219 p549
12 October 2002

Society summary

Support for mechanism for removing Council members from office

Respondents to the third discussion paper issued by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's modernisation steering group (PJ, August 10, p197) would like to see a mechanism for removing Council members from office for reasons such as poor attendance or poor performance.

Asked for their views on a range of issues concerning elections to the Council and Council membership, respondents also expressed strong support for Council election candidates being required to declare any adverse decisions on their fitness to practise. They also showed overall support for candidates having to declare their eligibility to serve as charity trustees.

Pharmacist respondents tended to favour retaining a three-year term of office for Council members but with a limit on the number of consecutive years a Council member may serve. Most pharmacists also favoured an age limit for Council members.

Pharmacists respondents also tended to favour some requirement for Council candidates to be "actively working" within pharmacy. There was general support for relaxing the restrictions on election canvassing.

The steering group received 44 responses, of which one was the feedback from the 2,143 completed questionnaires received by The Journal and analysed in last week's PJ (p507). Of the 43 direct responses, 22 were from individual pharmacists, two were from groups within the Society, 12 were from other bodies within pharmacy and seven were from stakeholder groups outside pharmacy.

Residency Five pharmacist respondents thought that election candidates should have their registered address in the area covered by the Society's authority (ie, Britain, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands) and four favoured retaining the "normally resident" requirement. Three pharmacists thought that candidates should live or work mainly in the area, as did both the Society groups. Four pharmacists and one Society group proposed a minimum period each year during which Council members would be required to live and/or work in the area.

Other pharmacy bodies were fairly evenly divided in their views but the four groups outside pharmacy that commented on this issue all favoured using a candidate's registered address as the criterion.

Board members of other pharmacy bodies Eleven pharmacists thought that there should be no restrictions on eligibility to serve on the Council for pharmacists who are board members of other pharmacy bodies, three thought there should be restrictions on some activities and two thought that such pharmacists should not serve on the Council. Two expressed concern about the degree of common membership between the Council and the boards of bodies representing community pharmacy employers. The corporate respondents generally did not support restrictions beyond the need to declare relevant interests and avoid conflicts of interest.

Fitness to practise Only two of the pharmacist respondents opposed Council candidates having to declare whether they had been the subject of any adverse fitness-to-practise decisions. Ten thought that candidates should declare all such decisions and two suggested that only serious findings should be declared. Three said that current investigations should also be declared. Two specified that only final decisions should be declared.

Two direct respondents thought that any pharmacist against whom such a decision had been made should be barred from the Council. Two thought that candidates should not be allowed to seek election if they were the subject of a current investigation.

The corporate respondents generally supported declaration of fitness-to-practise decisions, but with no consensus on whether this should include current investigations.

"Active working" Pharmacists were evenly split on whether Council candidates should be required to be working actively in pharmacy. Concersn raised included the risk of excluding good candidates, the difficulty of setting detailed criteria and definitions, a wish not to restrict voter choice, and the need for Council members to maintain contact with current practice.

The two Society groups supported an "active working" requirement, but seven of the 12 other pharmacy bodies were not generally supportive. Concern was expressed at the exclusion of pharmacists who could bring a broader perspective. Stakeholders groups outside pharmacy were divided on this issue.

Nominations Among the pharmacist respondents, 11 favoured removing the requirement that five of a candidate's 10 nominators should be from his or her own branch and eight thought it should be retained.

One group within the Society and seven other pharmacy bodies thought that nomination should be by any 10 pharmacists. The other Society group and two pharmacy bodies felt that the current requirement should be retained. One group outside pharmacy saw no need for change and three others thought the requirement should be removed.

Charity trustees Nineteen pharmacists thought that candidates should declare their eligibility to serve as charity trustees; one did not. Groups within the Society favoured a declaration, as did 10 of the other bodies within pharmacy and three of the bodies outside pharmacy. One pharmacy body said that the role of trustee should be separated from that of Council member.

Canvassing Eleven pharmacists wanted the current restrictions on canvassing to be retained, perhaps with some additional information made available to the electorate. Ten wanted the restrictions relaxed, although three thought that a financial limit was needed as well as ethical requirements built in.

Both Society groups favoured relaxing the restrictions, as did eight organisations within pharmacy, but three of the latter favoured some limit on campaign budgets. Two other pharmacy bodies favoured some relaxation, and one proposed no change. Two stakeholder bodies outside pharmacy felt that canvassing restrictions should go.

Term of office and election frequency Among pharmacist respondents, 14 favoured a three-year term of office for Council members, seven opted for four years and one for five years. Thirteen favoured annual elections, three preferred every two years and two suggested every three years. The corporate respondents tended to favour a four-year term, but opinions on the frequency of elections were spread over a range from one to four years.

Limit on office Eighteen pharmacists supported a limit on consecutive years served, 13 of them favouring six to nine years and four preferring 10 to 12 years. Three proposed no limit. Most corporate respondents believed there should be some limit, with eight years being the most frequent suggestion.

Age limit Among pharmacist respondents, 16 proposed an upper age limit for Council members, with 65 or 70 years most often suggested. Four were not in favour, seeing an age limit as discriminatory. It was also pointed out that a limit on consecutive terms of office might remove the need for an age limit.

Corporate respondents were divided on this issue. Where a limit was favoured, the most frequent suggestion was 70 years.

Removal from office Among the pharmacists respondents, 17 supported some change in the ways in which Council members may be removed from office, with only three proposing no change. Suggested reasons for removal were: poor attendance (seven respondents); poor performance or conduct (six); health reasons (five); fitness-to-practise cases (four), or bringing the Council into disrepute (three). Pharmacists suggested a range of mechanisms for removal. Some favoured a straightforward vote by the Council; others believed that the mechanism should be independent of the Council.

The Society groups also favoured some change, as did seven of the other pharmacy bodies. Among stakeholder groups outside pharmacy, five supported some change, although one group cautioned that "free thinkers should not be disadvantaged or discouraged".