The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7250 p708
24 May 2003

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

Winners [more]
Own goal [more]

Winners

Women and the under 40s are the winners in this year's election to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council. The three women candidates (all current members of Council) have been re-elected. The average age of the newly elected Council members is 43 years, with three of them under the age of 35. The average age of the outgoing members is just under 51 years.

It appears that the Society's modernisation team can afford to relax a little because the vote was by no means a ringing endorsement of the "Save Our Society" campaign. Only three of the seven candidates fielded gained seats — despite a well-organised (and not inexpensive) campaign on their behalf which involved sending many members of the Society an anonymous postcard canvassing support.

The "Save Our Society" campaign has also been behind the calling of the special general meeting on 1 June. Supporters have been critical (and vocal) about the modernisation process all along and concerned that the professional representative role of the Society is being eroded. So we are rather mystified as to why, after we invited members two weeks ago to send letters to the editor about the SGM, we have received only one letter so far. We publish it this week (p718).

Back to Top

Own goal

It has been custom and practice for many years for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's annual review and accounts to be adopted by the annual general meeting of the Society. Even the Official Notice published in The Journal in the weeks running up to the meeting on 14 May said that both the annual review and the accounts were to be presented for adoption — which has always been interpreted and acted out as a vote by those present.

The review is a factual account of the previous year's activities of the Council and the Society, and the accounts describe their financial activities. There is nothing in the Byelaws that states that either document need to be approved so, in that sense, the votes have never had much meaning — other than giving those present a chance to participate in the proceedings.

The fact that the President and the Secretary and Registrar chose to change the goalposts for the 162nd meeting and not allow a vote on either document was something of an own goal. To prevent two simple votes taking place at the eleventh hour will have done nothing to make members believe that the Society is trying to be open and transparent.

Back to Top