The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7251 p747-748
31 May 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 95K

  Patient packs
  Unlicensed medicines
  SGM
  The Society
  CPD
  The register

Letters to the Editor

Special general meeting

Members will be given a say

From Mr M. Koziol

Your report of the discussion on modernisation that took place before the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's annual general meeting did not report, probably due to space considerations, one important occurrence.

A suggestion was made to the President from the floor that the AGM represented a superb opportunity to gauge the level of support among the membership for the Society's current proposals on modernisation through a show of hands.

The President chose to reject this proposal and the opportunity was lost.

It would be a shame if this fact was never brought into the broader public domain. More importantly, on Sunday 1 June, the members will finally be given a say, by a show of hands, at the special general meeting. I urge all pharmacists to attend.

Mark Koziol
Birmingham

I wish to see the Society modernised

From Ms S. A. Haynes, MRPharmS

Your editorial "Winners" (PJ, 24 May, p708) implies that the "Save Our Society" campaign does not have the support of the majority of members. You cite the fact that "only" three out of the seven candidates were elected and highlight a lack of letters regarding the forthcoming special general meeting. You draw the conclusion that the modernisation team can afford to relax a little.

It is precisely because I wish to see the Royal Pharmaceutical Society modernised that I support the SOS campaign. Not only do I object to the removal of the representative function from the new Charter, but I would like to see the Society become a body that truly does represent the profession. That it does not perform this function well at the moment is shown by the fact that years after the introduction of patient packs, "snipping" is still being discussed in the letters pages. Surely an effective representative body would have lobbied successfully to eradicate this dangerous activity which is still a daily necessity.

I am happy to add my small voice to the much more prestigious ones of Robert Blyth and Douglas Simpson (PJ, 24 May, p718) in urging members to attend the SGM.

Sally A. Haynes
Birmingham

I hope members will show their support

From Mr N. J. Wicks, MRPharmS

I find your interpretation of the recent Council election results (PJ, 24 May, p708) both amusing and disturbing The successful "Save Our Society" candidates were ranked first, second, fifth, eighth, ninth, 10th and 13th out of a possible 18. All of the SOS candidates received more votes than some Council members who were standing for re-election, including the current Treasurer. So can the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's modernisation team really afford to relax, as you suggest?

Let me quote some facts: the seven SOS candidates received 45 per cent of the total number of votes cast both overall and in the top seven, three retiring Council members failed to be re-elected (including a past president and the current Treasurer), and the percentage of members voting went up to its highest level for the past four years at least.

I think these facts speak for themselves as to how the members feel and the success of those pharmacists who are prepared to "Save Our Society". The modernisation team cannot afford to relax any more than Council members up for re-election next year can.

It is small wonder then that members have stopped bothering to write to The Journal when it seems incapable of balanced and factually orientated journalism over this matter. Some members have taken matters into their own hands and have published their own newsletter which can be read at www.saveoursociety.org.uk. I hope members will again show their support in trying to "Save Our Society" by attending the special general meeting.

Noel Wicks
Stirling

Let Council know how you feel

From Mr M. R. Hickey, MRPharmS

How your leading article "Winners" (PJ, 24 May, p708) can say that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's modernisation team can afford to relax a little is beyond me.

I would argue that the vote in the Council election was indeed an endorsement of the "Save Our Society" campaign. Although only three candidates were elected (incidentally the same number as sitting Members of Council), a fourth candidate, independent of SOS, was elected — Martin Astbury. Furthermore two of the SOS candidates failed to be elected by 11 and 41 votes — hardly a crushing defeat for SOS when 53,569 votes were cast. The same can hardly be said for the defeated members of Council; they all failed by several hundreds, or a thousand or more, votes.

An analysis of the vote shows that 23,611 (44.1 per cent) of votes were cast for SOS candidates, while only 18,198 (34 per cent) were cast for candidates supporting Council policy. Many of the remaining 11,760 (22.0 per cent) of votes were certainly cast for candidates also opposing the modernisation process.

A cursory reading of the report of the annual general meeting in the same issue of the PJ shows a membership overwhelmingly opposing Council policy. Indeed, it was obvious to those present that Council policy on the night was "we are listening to you, but we actually know what is good for you, so we are going to ram it down your recalcitrant throats anyway, so there!". Democracy within the Society was finally extinguished that night.

When members read the reports of the branch representatives' meeting they will see that the Council was repeatedly and overwhelmingly defeated on the modernisation process, on branch funding, on plans for the Pharmaceutical Press and on the move to charitable status.

Yet still it claims to be engaged in a process of consultation. I have attended several recent Society-initiated meetings about the Charter, and again and again it trots out its mantra that if the members knew what it knew, they would do the same. Oh really! The process could accurately be described as "consultation without listening". Perhaps the Society could do the membership the favour of telling them what it "knows".

The Council has lost every open vote it has had to allow over the modernisation process, consistently and comprehensively. That is why it is advocating a new Charter rather than the reform of the existing one; it is the only way it can progress its policy without consulting the members through a vote. That is why the special general meeting is so important and that is why it is imperative that members attend and once again let the Council know how they feel.

Maurice Hickey
Forres, Moray

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Unlicensed medicines)
Next Topic (The Society)