The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7242 p435-437
29 March 2003
PDF* 80K
|
|
The Pharmaceutical Journal |
|
|
PDF* 80K |
|
The new Charter
|
The new CharterA transparent, democratic consultation is neededFrom Mr R. Dickinson, FRPharmS, and others We welcome the assurance that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council is to follow the advice of the Privy Council and consult widely on a new Charter and that the new Charter will "safeguard and strengthen the (Society's) professional role" (PJ, 15 March, p377). The key issue in relation to the "professional role" will, of course, be any proposed replacement of the Object in the current Charter "to maintain the honour and promote and safeguard the interests of the members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy". Another important issue will be how the results of the wide consultation exercise are dealt with and reported to the members. A transparent democratic process would involve: • Ensuring that the consultation exercise is not subject to impossibly short time constraints • Publishing a report of the major points made during the consultation, how often they were raised, accompanied by a statement of which have been accepted and which rejected and, in each case, an explanation of why • Putting the text of the new Charter as proposed following the consultation to a general meeting of members There is nothing new in the Council publishing a report of the kind suggested, ie, on the outcome of a consultation exercise, on topics much less fundamental to the structure of the Society than a proposal for a new Charter. For example, whenever a new Code of Ethics and Statement of Professional Standards is proposed, there is wide consultation with the branches and the members generally. A final proposal is then put to an annual general meeting with an indication of the changes made to the original based on comments received during the consultation. If necessary, an explanation is also given of why the Council considers one or more suggested changes would not be appropriate. The members at the AGM are then asked to approve the new text section by section. The text finally adopted then has the added legitimacy of being the consensus of the membership, rather than something imposed by the Council. Surely a lesser standard of democratic process is not justifiable for a proposal that could change the very nature of the Society. After all, as The Journal report makes clear, if the Council were proposing amendments to the Supplemental Charter of 1953, it would be required to put the proposed amendments to a special general meeting and would require to achieve a majority of three-fourths of the members present and voting. The suggestion is made that a general meeting might not give a true picture of the views of the majority. Would that not depend on the number of members present and how much their views coincided with the major points made repeatedly in the consultation? If objections did indeed come from a small and vocal minority, that would be clear but we are convinced that is unlikely to be the case. There is nothing new, either, in proceeding along the legislative and Charter paths simultaneously. After all, the 1953 Supplemental Charter was negotiated at the same time as the Pharmacy Act 1954 was within the parliamentary process. For the avoidance of any doubt, let us assure you that none of us is among the band said by you to be likely to be "spluttering into their porridge or cappuccinos." We recognise and accept the need for some change. However, we do have serious concerns about, among other things, the proposal that the Society should become a charity, bearing in mind no one knows what that would mean in the medium term. According to press reports, charity law is to be changed and the nature of such changes needs to be known before the Society takes such an important step. For example, we could find that, as a charity, it would be impossible for the Society to undertake a professional representative role. That would, in our view, be unacceptable to the great majority of members. Raymond Dickinson John Ferguson Bruce Rhodes Douglas Simpson Sydney Southwell A new Charter will not end the Society’s miseryFrom Mr M. Koziol, MRPharmS A series of stark and revelational admissions appeared in the "Fit for the future" pullout which came with The Pharmaceutical Journal of 15 March. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society now clearly admits that it would not succeed in securing the constitutional backing of the membership for its proposed changes. The pullout in essence is an admission that the Society is in great difficulty. However, the Society has found itself in a mess for one simple reason: in planning a future it has strongly advocated a Society which is primarily regulatory, whereas those opposed to this plan have advocated a Society which gives equal prominence to both the regulatory and membership activities. The ideas that have been put forward by the members have secured widespread support. The Society now believes that it can bypass the constitutional safety net, which allows the members to vote on any proposed changes, by simply trying to force through a new Charter quickly and expediently without the need for a special general meeting. It believes instead that it will be allowed to get away with another pretence of a consultation — as before. The Society's motivation is clear: it wants a new Charter to reflect the needs of the Government's regulatory agenda. Indeed, the pullout makes clear that the same Department of Health officials as have been involved in the drafting of the Section 60 (regulatory) order would be involved in the rewrite of the Charter. I am surprised that the Society has not worked out that calling for a new Charter will not end its misery. I can only imagine that just as the current debate has already shown, two new Charter options will emerge: • A regulatory Charter proposed by the Society and backed by the Government • A members' Charter proposed and backed by the large majority of members The only way that a new Charter can be installed is if it can be shown that it enjoys the broad support of pharmacists. As such, the Society can attempt to run away from the outcome of an SGM by changing the rules of the debate, but it will not be able to escape a simple logic. Pharmacists will always want the Society to safeguard and promote the interests of the members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy. A new Charter will merely provide an opportunity to emphasise this role and enable the Society to do it much better. Mark Koziol Is consultation a pointless exercise?From Mr G. W. Watson, MRPharmS I note that the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has wisely decided to avoid submitting its proposals for a new Charter to a special general meeting and having to face a "small but vocal minority", which apparently includes every living past-president other than those currently on Council and the former editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal. Instead it has opted for consultation. For some reason the words of Sir Winston Churchill come to mind: "One can always consult a man and ask whether he would like his head chopped off tomorrow but when he says he would prefer not, cut it off anyway." G. Watson Charter should mention inactive pharmacistsFrom Miss H. C. Stanniland, MRPharmS I read with interest the proposal for a new Royal Charter in last week's issue of The Pharmaceutical Journal. I approve of the aims of the proposal and most of the wording. However, in the recent consultation on CPD, there was a proposal to create a second register for "inactive" pharmacists who would not be required to undertake CPD. If such a second register is created, then paragraph 5 of the Charter should make specific reference to such pharmacists, rather than including them in the "other persons in such categories" umbrella statement. This would give them the recognition that they deserve. Claire Stanniland |
||||||
|
Send your letter to The Editor |
Next Topic (Supermarket pharmacy) |
Home | Journals | News | Notice-board | Search | Jobs Classifieds | Site Map | Contact us
