The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7252 p780
7 June 2003

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

Communication, communication, communication

Well over 300 members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society braved the icy blasts of the air-conditioning at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre to attend the special general meeting on 1 June. After an awkward start, the content of the speeches was far from cool. Speaker after speaker put forward strongly held views, and the motions — both those previously tabled and those presented for the first time at the meeting — were overwhelmingly carried (see p802). If there is a theme binding them all together it is that the Council has failed to listen to the membership.

The Council has now met. It includes four new members, all of whom spoke against Council policy at the SGM. A statement that was approved by the Council has been released. It acknowledges the concerns raised on 1 June and covers three important issues. The first is that the decisions of the SGM — including the demand that the Society should be managed by two boards — will be considered at the next strategy day on 2 July. The second is that the Council has decided not to pursue charitable status for the Society for the time being, and the third is that no decisions will be made by the Council on the content of the new Charter until the consultation has been concluded. The statement also emphasises the point that the draft Charter in circulation has not been agreed by Council — it is simply a draft.

Whether or not this statement will allay the fears of members who attended the SGM remains to be seen. In the short time since the SGM the Council cannot be accused of not listening: it has responded to the SGM and will allocate further time to consider the issues. The trickiest issue it will have to tackle is how to marry the idea of the Society as an integrated regulator and professional body (PJ, 25 May 2002, p739) with the notion that the Society should be managed by two separate boards (p805).

Members must now have the confidence that the new Council will put the interests of the profession — as well as the public — at the centre of the process: there is much more that binds together the two schools of thought on how the Society should be modernised than drives them apart.

Whatever the outcome of the modernisation deliberations, all will be for nought if the Society fails to ensure that members understand the grounds on which Council decisions are made. Effective communication is critical.

Back to Top